Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
You do not see it that way, I get it, but he did. He did not ban you, he did not give a reminder or an infraction, he sent you a PM to tell you quite being disrespectful. I see that sort of thing like Pro Standards. Your madder than all get out because he called your character in to question. Great, air it to him, or report him. I highly doubt that IB will replace him because he is trying to clean up one of their assets. Many like the "under boob" and how it toys with the PG-13 line, but there are many that do not, and have quit reading this board.
I took the first part about this not being the air force as a direct insult to UALT38, and the second as an insult to all of us who generally try to moderate these threads with the idea and goal of letting the conversations lead themselves. A few edits of a few pictures and this is where it goes to. Sad state if you ask me. It is good to have a readjustment and reminders of what the bounds are. You want to force the issue of money, go for it, but my take away is that they have no issue if this thread gets locked. It is bound by the same TOS as every other thread. If anything the results of the edits and reminders will keep more people waiting to pounce on any real or perceived issue that arises on this or any other DAL thread.
My thoughts are that Bar was annoyed that the Super-Mod yelled at him, for being against the TOS, but he wasn't. He was just complaining about the moderation of the site. Apparently, criticizing the management around here was verboten - but not in the TOS - Of course, it's their website, but if the mod start giving violations to people because they are complaining about stuff - people will eventually leave.
The political comments draw a lot of ire - sure, talking about the President, Congress and the upcoming election can grow heated and are unlikely change people's opinion, that's why the TOS says we can't do that.
As for nudity or near nudity, do people really know what PG-13 means? It is not what a Disney movie shows- that's "G". PG-13 mean all sorts of things, but here's what the MPAA website says about it:
A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented.
So - did people know that a PG-13 movie could have nudity? Well, it can. So if the TOS says, "PG-13" images, a picture of a topless women sunbathing on a beach would be appropriate. But the TOS says No nudity, so that's the more restrictive (it's like a MEL!
) so we follow that. Sure, it's a slippery slope, how much of the breast is exposed, etc etc. That's why we have mods to make those decisions. I have been happy with the work of FTB, AC and Johnso, they have been making good decisions.
But, when some Super-Mod who doesn't come by often stops by, maybe he's a little surprised by what he sees. I'm sure the 2 page thread on jumpseating to Europe in the cargo thread doesn't have the discussion and comradrie that this thread has - nor the pictures and jokes. Because of the width and breadth of this thread, it's going to ebb and flow. During the slow times between AEs, aircraft orders and contract stuff, other topics come up. We do a good job keeping things in bounds, but our mods (FTB/ACL/Johnso) poke us occasionally and say "hey guy, cut it out" and we all go back to being responsible posters.
I just hope that everyone can realize that this thread has a life of it's own - they might cut us a little slack and not shut it down if we stray a little bit. We should police ourselves and realize we don't see need to see tons of images of nearly naked women. If you can't find naked women on the internet yourself, first we need to revoke your Man card and second check you if you're a pilot.