It truly seems these days that seemingly every other forum post (this is obviously an exaggeration, but you get the point) eventually results in, for whatever reason, a scandalous picture of half naked or completely naked women. This is a problem for many loyal 11Dub'ers, not only because they do not care to see that here on Eleven Warriors, but because they simply cannot see that on Eleven Warriors for professional reasons. I just would like to ask the staff your guys' stance on the "issue" and if there is any potential solution?
PHONE'S RINGING -- IT'S URBAN ON THE LINE
•Football Schedule•Basketball Schedule•Forum•About•Contact
11W Poll
Buckshots
Buckshots Block
-
Marc Loving Named Parade Magazine All-America
Two-time Ohio Division 1 Boy's Basketball Player of the Year picks up another award.
-
Ohio State Men's Tennis Season Ends in Heartbreaker
Fifth-ranked Buckeyes lose 4-3 to No. 1 UCLA in national semifinals.
-
One Year In and Ohio State Fans are Already Making Busts of Urban Meyer
That's one handsome bust.
-
Rivals Releases a New Rivals100
Heavy Ohio State lean Raekwon McMillan picks up a fifth star.
-
Kirk Ferentz's High School Nickname was "Fetus Head"
Explains a lot, really.
-
STROKE! STROKE! STROKE!
Ohio State Women's Rowing: 2013 B1G Champions
Recent Blog Posts
- Wrestling: A Look Back at the Career of 4-time NCAA Qualifier CJ Magrum
- 2013: The WR Rotation
- The Dontre Wilson Impact
- Better know a ... Mountaineer?
- Joey Bosa = perfect OOS recruit!
- Wrestling: Stieber defeats #1 Ranked wrestler in the world at Rumble on the Rails
- Response to Johnny's "There's so much money going around, well, mostly"
- My Worst Ohio State Football Experience Ever
- Summer Reading: The Most Hated On
- Big Ten State Beer Consumption Rankings
Active in the Forum
- Not a form tackle
- 11W Community Interview: Detroit Cass Tech CB Damon Webb
- As The Stomach Turns.....NCAA - The U lovefest rages on
- Best Buckeye Team in Our Lifetime?
- New 2014 Offer being reported...
- Center Corey Linsley Named to Rimington Trophy Spring Watch List
- 2014 JUCO OT Jermaine Eluemunor
- 2014 CB Quincy Wilson
- 2015 Offers/Commits *Updated 5/20*
- 2014 RB/ATH Jonathan Haden
- Quick Bits 5/20 (one new offer in both sports)
- 2015 ohio players
- Kiper Has Bradley Roby as His Top Corner Prospect
- Man claims to be an All American Tight End from Ohio State is a fraud
- 2014 DT Andrew Brown
Want to say hello?
We love hearing from you! Whether you want to work with us, discuss advertising opportunities, or pass us a hot tip, you're more than welcome to drop us a line.
There were completely naked women on here? Proof? >.>
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
I recently came across Kate Upton with nothing but a bikini bottom painted on to her. Let me go fetch it for you. But of course someone takes an incredibly minute portion of the post to try and take away from the point I'm trying to make/question I'm trying to ask.
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/recruiting/2013/02/bama-offers-glenv...
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
I didn't even realize those were painted on. lol
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
Funny how the people that are "offended" by pics of half naked women seem to find the best pictures. I'm laugh my ass off at you Jake.
Man, I've seen so many better pictures of KU. None of them are bad though. Let me rephrase that, I dare you to find a bad one.
Wow! That picture was just awful. Kate posing with a painted ass; is it really necessary? Mmmaaaybeeee?
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
I know it wasn't your intention but thanks for guiding me to that picture.
I wasn't asked about this and I'm not a staff member, but since my post was used as a reference as something done wrong or undesiered, so I feel somewhat obliged to respond. First of all I'd like to apologize as I don't like offending anyone with any of my posts or making it so someone can't view 11W!
I've personally only posted pictures that would fall under this category twice (at least in my mind/I can remember). The two are the one you already mentioned and other posts are in this thread: FAVORITE NON-STAFF POSTERS? These are also the only two I can remember having such pictures in recent memory (not saying there aren't more, but I'm on a lot of forums and I can't remember any[or at least not many]more).
All but one video that I posted(which Kate Upton was in a bikini and no one was forced to watch)were all from arguable her most famous photo shoot she did for Sports Illustrated. That's right, the are from a sports magazine that any person at any age can buy. Yes it's from the swimsuit addition, but she is modeling a swimsuit in a sports magazine. Painted on or not, it's a swimsuit and would constitute clothing. The one you pointed out I actually almost posted a different one that was even more reveling or one of her in lingerie, but I didn't. I decided that a less reveling one from a sports magazine was more appropriate when someone requested to see her "lower back".
I won't go too in depth on these points, but to me it's demeaning to all people, but especially woman, to tell them to cover up their body, the way we all entered this world. A naked person is not hurting anyone and if someone else has a problem with it, well it's their problem and not the person that is not hurting anyone. These pictures haven't been sexual in any nature. Again, she is a supermodel, doing her job. There's no sexual promiscuity involved. If you want to argue it religiously/spiritually, it's the body you were born with, the one God gave you, why would you want to cover up what God gave you(other then warmth and other times of need and necessity)? Isn't that an insult to God? If you want to argue legally, well it's legal in most states to at least be topless, check it out: ToplessLaws.com (don't worry there isn't any nudity on this site).
Now that's just my feelings on it without wanting extrapolate too much into morals, religion, laws or anything like that. Now I understand wanting to make sure that you can view the forums at work(and maybe you completely agree with me and just want to view 11W at work, so my rant was a moot point). I for one will try to be more mindful if this is the case. I pulled the pics off of Google Image searches but it looks like the pic you had mentioned is linked back the theChive.com. Is that on your works ban list? The other two look like they are from i.cdn.turner.com and blacksportsonline.com. Are either of these two on your works ban list? The videos were from YouTube. Maybe your webmaster, or whomever, can provide you with a list of sites they ban and we can avoid posting anything from them.
Lastly, I can't speak for you and your employer, but I've personally had to reprimand and/or fire some of my employees for being online too much and I know how addicting 11W and Buckeye info in general can be, so I wouldn't want that to happen to you or anyone else on here!
A few points...
1. I wasn't trying to call you out or single you out, so I apologize for that.
2. The point of this post was not to argue on my personal views, rather to bring up an important issue that most online forums cover with a "NSFW" button/click before viewing a post like yours. With that being said, I can't help myself in calling out your "its not sexual" bullshit, man haha. Perhaps you are very unique or come from some Garden of Eden society, but for everybody else, that picture and the other pictures posted like it on this site are taken very sexually. For Pete's sake, somebody replied to that picture you posted insinuating they were now going to masturbate! Is this stuff that needs to be posted on a recruiting forum topic on 11W!?
3. Paint is not clothing nor is it a swimsuit.
4. I can view whatever I want to view. No sites are blocked, but if I am somehow caught viewing something NFSW, it wouldn't be good news for me.
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
A rebuttal...
1. No problem, I didn't feel singled out, I just felt obliged to respond since my post was used as the main example for a problem with the 11W boards/forums. No need to apologize, but I appreciate it, as well as this thought provoking conversation!
2. (a)Sorry I miss took you saying/typing:
in your OP as a personal view. I would consider 11W (sorry guys) or any site that isn't work related as "NSFW", at least while on shift and not on break, for my employees. I wouldn't mind a post taken from Sports Illustrated coming up on someone's computer if that person was on break (and the picture didn't cause a loss or revenue or hurt the business in anyway), but I would mind them visiting ANY site that is not increasing their work productivity, and consider it "NSFW".
(b) While you and others may see this photo as "very sexually", it actually isn't. She is not having sex, there isn't anyone else even in the picture, she is not doing anything sexual to herself or any object and in no way is she making any type of sexual gestures. Nothing about the picture is factually sexual. It is only when it enters the minds of certain individuals that their subjective opinion makes it sexual. As an example, there are pictures on here of football players (or even one I put of Tracy Jordan) without shirts on and/or with very little clothing, they are not sexual in nature. You may be able to find people, many people in fact, that would think they are sexually attractive pictures, that doesn't make them sexual in any nature or having sexual promiscuity as I stated in my OP. This is a subjective matter and the opinion of a person, or persons, is not a fact by any means; not even if someone posted, "...insinuating they were now going to masturbate". There are many people that have, what I would personally consider, odd fetishes. Just because they may get sexually aroused by, IDK let's say a picture of a sunset, or anything you want to replace the word sunset with, doesn't make the picture sexual by nature. That person's opinion, or even the opinion of many, is just that, an opinion and doesn't make it a fact. In fact I think it's rather sexist that a woman with hardly any clothes on is considered "NSFW", but a guy with hardly any clothes on is fine.
(c) I will admit that it doesn't "need" to be posted, but how much really needs to be posted in the forums? It may not be the most appropriate forum to post it under, but the user name KateUptonsLowerBack invoked a comment from someone wanting to see her lower back, so I posted a picture, from a sports magazine, that showed her lower back. No, I did not need to post this, but it came up in conversation and I did/do not find that picture offensive in anyway or even "NSFW" anymore then being on 11W during work is NSFW at all is in my point of view.
3. Merriam Webster's definition of Clothing : garments in general; also : covering. Google's definition of Clothes: Items worn to cover the body. So, as you probably can tell, the paint covering her body would, by definition, constitute it as clothing. The fact it is done for a photo shoot for a swimsuit magazine would add validity to the fact that it is a swimsuit.
4. We most likely have differing opinions on what "NSFW" means between you/your boss(es) and myself. The picture(s) you mentioned would be a moot point for me as I again, would find anything not increasing work productivity or bringing in additional revenue as NSFW while the employee was supposed to be working. It appears that your boss(es) don't mind you surfing on their dime as long as you don't come across pictures of women's natural bodies taken from a magazine that anyone can purchase regardless of age.
5.(I'm adding one...) +1 To you sir, very nice response! I enjoyed your points of view as I often like to see things from other's point of view and reassess my own; making sure I should feel the way I do or if I find I shouldn't; change my point of view. Just FYI, I don't plan on posting many (if any) pics like this in the future and, even with a differing point of view, I will be more mindful and considerate if I do. Perhaps, if I feel the urge to post said material, I can just post a link, or at least smaller, thumbnail like pic that you can click on to view I larger pic with a warning, rather then posting a full pic on here. Even though we may not see eye to eye on the subject, you have still helped me see another point of view and I will personally change some of my habits because of that. I look forward to your response and continuing our conversation on here!
I loved the picture and agree with most of your points. However, Kate's painted on bottom is not clothes. It may cover the color of her skin but it doesn't conceal anything. It is not a garment. Now perhaps so much paint could be applied to constitute clothing but this wasn't the case (sometimes girls will have there tops painted but their nipples are covered first with a piece of tape or latex and the paint is layered over- one could argue that it is clothing). That one point just strains credulity.
I feel badly that people can look at the site at work but I am selfish and enjoy those pictures.
+1 Citrus, someone replied to my post! The thing is I'm not looking at whether I think the paint on her body is or isn't clothing, by definition it is clothing, no matter what I think. Both Merriam Webster and Google's definition of garment is clothing which we already went over, means covering the body. Looking at dictionary.com:
Another definition that garment is covering the body, or in this case, "outward appearance". The paint isn't transparent, you can't see through it, it is in fact covering parts of her body, therefore it is by three different dictionaries, clothing/garment.
I'll change gears here slightly and put it a different way. If the paint on her body, didn't cover her up, hence be considered clothing, this issue of SI would never have made it to the news stands or the public for sale. If it did some how, there would be a class action lawsuit, as it would be considered pornography in the obscenity varity, which is not covered by the first amendment, which means they couldn't just sell it to anyone regardless of age. This is another reason that these pictures aren't considered sexual in nature. If they were, they wouldn't be protected by the first amendment and wouldn't be sold to the general public.
This pictures in no way disrespect Kate Upton or the viewer. I understand when people disrespect the picture/Kate Upton, but the pictures themselves, I don't understand the problem with. They are picture of one of the top women in the world, in her well respected profession, doing her job.
In the end though, no matter what, this is the 11W business, and not an open market to do whatever we want, so whatever they want is what needs to be respected. It is their livelihood after all. I might not completely agree with it, but this is an issue that I personally can completely respect the wishes of the business/business owner(s).
If her other body parts were displayed and not just her backside, then the issue wouldn't made it to stores. Bare backsides can be shown on tv etc.
One comment: Those photos are not sexual in nature? Total BS...
oh i see, i always was under the assumption that body paint counts as clothes. At least that's what i tell my wife and she seems to accept it.
I'm a teacher, so when those pics get posted my work firewall usually blocks me from the thread. I also have a hot wife so I don't really have a need for pics of half naked women.
What am I missing? I haven't seen one yet... And why does that bother you?
If the firewall blocks me from the thread then I can't read it... Is that a clear enough explanation?
excuse me... I hadn't seen the photo you were talking about atr the time. Way to take things over the top..
I have wondered the same thing as the OP... I do feel, however, that a lot of links are often labeled as NSFW by members of the community, so you sometimes know what you potentially pursue... I don't know how firewall/Internet security functions for professionals at work, especially related to posts and pics, so I am interested to gain information regarding the matter...
Tom Crean listens to Nickelback...
... I just re-read my post, and I hope I don't come across as a creeper, lol
Tom Crean listens to Nickelback...
I can understand the concern about being at work, but in all reality we should be working when at work anyways so actually others are doing us a favor by making it more difficult to successfully navigate the 11W site when working! They may be saving our jobs. It's simply a public service really.
Many of us have breaks where we can get on the Internet and not interfere with work.
I'm glad you mentioned this because it's honestly bothered me for some time not only for the reason you mentioned but because we have two incredibly talented women that write for the site and we want 11W to be a place where all fans can feel comfortable discussing their beloved Buckeyes.
We don't have any hard rules on this, but I'd appreciate it if you guys could do me a favor and keep things highbrow around here.
We brought both of these reasons up in a thread a while back but we're clearly in the minority. I'm glad you weighed in on it. Maybe they'll listen to you.
Thanks for the response, Jason. Amen.
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
I glad to see a staff speak up after I've gotten berated over listing 5 or more reasons why they are not a good idea to post. I'll keep taking my lickings, it's worth standing up against.
I'm glad to hear from the staff on this. I've noticed a sharp increase in these posts (nothing quantified, but I'd swear on it) and, as a woman, as someone who tries to check 11W on her lunch break, and as someone who wants to see 11W keep it classy... thanks.
I can see things from both sides on this issue - sorry to cop out. This goal, however, makes me a little squeamish:
One of the great things about 11W is all the "flavor" - humor, irreverence, edginess, sarcasm, etc. I'm not sure that it's really feasible to maintain that edginess while also trying to tiptoe around everyone's feelings and social agendas. On a site where college football is the most popular topic, there will be a certain amount of "locker room" banter, but that goes with territory. That doesn't give posters a license to be abusive, lewd, irresponsible, etc., but it does suggest that those who are especially sensitive to such banter might bring some tolerance of their own.
I disagree with you here. Your phrasing implies that this site is some kind of good old boys club. It's not, there are both male and female members and contributors and it appears that both of these populations in one way or another could go without posting of NSFW material, regardless of what their reasons are.
I do think that 11W can maintain it's humor, irrverence, edginess, sarcasm, etc, without the direct posting of near naked women and then the 5 comments that follow, objectifying women with "I like the one on the right" or "I'd hit that" or "OMG. I've got to go." It's far too blatant and disrespectful to the females on the site.
And finally, we're supposed to be a community of Ohio State fans, a community is supposed to respect one another. Not only are posting like the ones in questions directly disrespectful to the females on the site, but they also are indirectly disrespectful to those of us who have continually asked for stuff like this not to be posted. I get it, freedom of speech. I'm not the man, and I'm not trying to bring you down, oppress you, or kill your buzz. Just post a frickin' link and write NSFW next to it. Just by doing this, and everyone who needs this stuff to make their day better, can perform a single extra of the mouse, and we'd have an ideal solution. Why is this so hard? Has anyone heard of compromise? You can still have your pictures, you just have to clink a link to see them.
Oh, no! You're "making" me pull out my favorite word, which is "strawman," which only proves that BuckeyeJason's signature line is correct!
First, what comment of mine were you reading? Apparently, not the one in which I wrote:
In other words, I'm appreciating the importance of, and/or agreeing with the principle that, we should "respect one another," not disrespect females.
I don't recall ever posting a NSFW girl pic, myself, so again you're talking past me, even as you're supposedly directly responding to me.
Second, my phrasing does not imply "some kind of good old boys club." That's all coming from you, bro. I've known more than a few women who'd constantly make off-color jokes/references that would embarrass their male friends (who played the role of wilting violets). The most outspoken critic of NSFW girl pics on 11W is Steensn, whom I've gathered is male.
Third, and most importantly, if you actually read my comment, I was responding to the general principle suggested by Jason - prioritizing the value of making 11W ". . . a place where all fans can feel comfortable . . . - which goes well beyond NSFW girl pics. As you know, people get offended and/or are made uncomfortable by all sorts of things, not just NSFW pics. My argument was that it's better to error on the side of promoting a relatively free and edgy environment, while asking community members to develop thicker skins, than it is to promote an environment that maximizes comfort-levels but is less edgy.
Others might disagree, but at least please do not attribute to me arguments I'm not making.
I was in no means trying to attack you personally and am sorry if it came off that way. But with respect to the strawman, what you did was essentially phrased it to take no stance on an issue
and then indirectly took a stance on the issue
And so if I misunderstood you, and you are preaching about respect for one another, then we're completely on the same page here.
You also used the word "locker room banter" and implied that on a site such as this, there is an amount that should be expected. However, this is a very poor analogy because locker rooms are places where men and women do not mix (very different from this site) - hence my comment about the site appearing like a good old boys club.
Beyond that, I am not talking directly at you as you mentioned, it was more a general comment. I've read many of your posts and they are mostly analytical and do not contain NSFW material.
And finally, because I did actually read your comment, you implied yourself to be opposed to "making the website comfortable for all fans" I understand that some people are more sensitive than others and everyone has their hot button and I do agree that there must be compromise on everything, and I suggested as much. Essentially your suggestion for a compromise is for the people who don't like it to deal with it. That's not really compromise.
OBP: my bad on being unclear in several respects.
First, I did not feel that you were attacking me, personally. Sorry, if I gave that impression. On the contrary, if I am engaged in argument, I will tend to take an aggressive line myself against my opponent's arguments (not against him or her, personally). Whereas if we're having a "discussion," then I'll tend to take an easy-going approach. I should probably less aggressive in arguments, too.
A pet peeve is when my fellow discussion-mates attribute arguments to me I'm not making. But I'm often guilty of doing the same thing myself (and I expect to be called on it).
On the substantive points we're discussing, I also wasn't clear enough - my bad, again. I meant to suggest that I saw both sides of the NSFW girl pics issue, but that I was then shifting gears to respond to the more general principle Jason was suggesting about making all viewers feel comfortable (hey, he expanded the discussion before I did, albeit as part of a commendable effort to explain 11W editorial policy).
You make a good point about my locker room analogy, but I wasn't thinking in those terms - the boy/girl segregation in that context. I was thinking purely in terms of the borderline bawdiness of the locker rooms enjoyed by sports teams of either (or mixed) gender(s).
But I was not suggesting no compromise on what might make viewers feel comfortable/uncomfortable. I was viewing it along a spectrum, not as a black/white issue. I'm more on the "laissez-faire" end of the spectrum, but only to a certain extent. Others probably favor another range on the spectrum. C'est la vie.
But... But... But... there is nothing sexual about those pictures... ;) <--- obvious lie...
Hey, Steensn, I'm pretty sure that your comment is towards my first post in this thread. If so, out of curiosity, did you read any of my other posts in this thread as I explained in my OP that it wasn't my full view? If you did read them, would you care to respond to those comments, and not just to the first one I posted that I specifically state wasn't complete?
Here's another point that I haven't previously made: my girlfriend will dress completely appropriately and not in a sexual manner, yet she gets hit on all the time and even told very inappropriate things, especially while bartending(things even worse then what gets posted in here I assure you). Just because these guys, and even girls, make very inappropriate and sexual comments to her, does that make her sexual in nature? I'm sure you've experienced a similar situation or two with a significant other and/or retaliative and/or close female friend. Instead of being upset at the guys saying this to the female in your life, did you get mad at the girl and tell her not to be sexual in nature? I've dated at least three girls that have modeled and/or would be considered a model. Just because they were models, or even when they were modeling, doesn't make them or their profession sexual in nature. If others view it that way, that is there prerogative and subjective opinion. Their opinion does not make it fact. I mentioned this before (you can read that post for more details), but disrespecting the women in these pictures with such remarks as what you pointed out is not ok. However, telling a woman that she can't model without objectifying her and turning her into a sex object when that was not her intentions or objective, is just as disrespectful to her, if not more because it takes away a woman's right and equality to not have to cover their breasts/chest like a man is not required to either.
I am working my way down, lots of post to address and frankly lies/strawman arguments/ and nonsensical misdirections... I'll get there at some point. Only so much time on my break ;)
I have experienced women dressed appropriate getting hit on, actually my wife (then fiance) was hooted and hollered at by men (older and marred) while we were on a walk at the park once. It is unacceptable and she didn't do anything wrong. When the girl is wearing generally acceptable clothing (not daisy dukes and a tube top) it isn't their fault at all. If they dress like a prostitute they'll get treated by one. But look at my responses in all of this, though I disagree with Upton's decision to pose like that and make those pictures (I think she is taking advantage of men with her body in ways I don't agree with), I have addressed ONLY the men on this board and how and why they posted commented on the pictures the way they did. I said nothing about the women because frankly that is not the issue I have here.
I think Upton has the right to objectify herself sexually all she wants. I won't stop her, but I will say what I think about it. She does not have the right in public to bare her chest for clearly obvious reasons I posted below. Please don't make that stupid and idiotic argument, it is beyond out of context, science, and social reasons so far that one has to be delusional to believe it. If there is a market for one selling their body and going down there (whether they think they are or not, aka your models), they can, but if they are showing themselves off like that they are going to be. My issue is "us" taking those pics, putting them here (where they are not on topic), and objectifying them...
You do realize that repeatedly claiming another's opinion is straw man is one of the biggest signs that your opinion is actually a straw man's and not the one you are debating, right? So is attacking someone else's claim by calling it "stupid", "idiotic" and "delusional". It usually shows a sign of desperation and that you actually don't have much ground to stand on or validity to back your claims up, when you make personal attacks like that
It doesn't matter how a woman dresses, she doesn't deserve to be with disrespect or subhuman in anyway shape or form solely on the clothes she is wearing. This could only be appropriate if she enters into that type of situation with full wiliness and disclosure.
Women don't have that right? Really? I think states, if not women, would vastly disagree with you on that one. The vast majority of states would disagree with you on this as there are only three states that out right ban woman being topless check it out: ToplessLaws.com (don't worry there isn't any nudity on this site). As far as woman go, many many have fought for this right, and even if they don't feel the need to excersize it they still feel the need to have teh equality and ability to do so. You can Google Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA) and see a whole association dedicated to helping women that want to go topless:
I won't actually link to it because it has pictures of both men and women who are topless on it. you can Google and find other sites and organizations still fighting for women's rights in this area and probably find the history of women fighting for this cause as well. It's plain and simple as suppressing the rights of others to not allow this freedom.
-> where has this become about her and not the use of her pictures?
Frankly, no it isn't. Some things are just that dumb. Ignoring basic human urges and genetics to be "100% equal in everything" is ignorant. People should know better... claim what you want about the words I chose to use and what it means, I said what I meant and there is nothing more behind it. If someone really thinks that a man shirtless is equal with a women shirtless then they failed basic anatomy and health class we were all forced to take as school. It is equal to someone not being able to read yet trying to tell a literate person what what a newspaper is saying.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-males-can-lactate
and
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=40437 .... why do men have nipples discussion
both SFW
But yet still not the same and does not elicit the same reaction... odd...
I never, EVER thought I would see this discussion on 11W: "why do men have nipples?"
"Here officer, hold my beer while I find my license."
I love the humor, irreverence, edginess and sarcasm that I see on this site every day. I do, however, get tired of seeing threads in which commenters, with nothing to add to the conversation, hoist up a Kate Upton GIF or photos of Oregon cheerleaders. Here and there is fine -- I realize this is a sports site, and as you said, some of that will come with the territory -- but it seems as if every third forum thread was turning into a derivative of that (along with the "I'd hit that" and "HURR I HAVE TEH BONER" that those photos seem to draw out).
As I pointed out, we have women that write for this site, and a female reader checked in above to say she was troubled by the increased horndoggery. I think it just comes down to being considerate and elevating the conversation a bit.
We don't have any hard rules on it. I'm just asking for a favor on behalf of the many women that read and enjoy this site.
I probably should have stated more clearly, up front, that I fully support efforts to rein-in gratiuitous, sloppy horndoggery. IMO, it doesn't really add anything to the dialogue here and if I want to see Kate Upton's back or front sides, there are other, better venues for that.
On the other hand, cleaning up that stuff is kinda low-lying fruit and I just wouldn't want the most sensitive among us to interpret a policing of NSFW girl pics as an invitation to push for a bunch of other sensitivity reforms. Not all material that would make some of our friends uncomfortable would be as easy to categorize and tag as the blatant NSFW girl pics.
This is the right approach - this is a sports site, and photos of
hothot (am I allowed to say hot? I jest) cheerleaders is perfectly appropriate assuming it's within context. The more recent, more blatant "Hey, look, boobs!" pics are a different thing, entirely. Some commenters are obviously more sensitive to the issue than others.No need to police it, per say, and definitely no reason for a sweeping PC-policy. It's a sports bar, folks - keep it PG13, and stay away from politics, religion and ex-wives.
Two-thirds right Andy. Ex-wives are free game as long as everyone is dogging her or giving you crap for being a dumbass for marrying her in the first place. As long as its in good humor though.
-The Aristocrats!
Andy, this is what bothers me most. The irrelevant gifs people throw out there whether it be boobs or other miscellaneous images. I am sure that I am in the minority.
Great point. There's a certain savvy required in knowing the right time to throw a clever gif or meme into a thread... Perhaps it's to cut the tension if a thread's become too serious, perhaps it actually has some relevance to the context of the discussion... But a lot of times threads are derailed, hijacked or otherwise turned into a gif-fest having little to do with the thread topic.
Many times I'll laugh and find enjoyment from a clever gif or meme, but other times they can be sorely out of place, or feel like a blatant cry for upvotes.
I welcome the occasional clever meme or gif to help lighten the mood. Some people are just too serious on this site and sometimes there needs to be a break from the arguments and name calling. I personally can do without the girls that keep getting posted , but at the same time, I'm all for free speech and allowing people to post what they want on here. But people also need to realize that this is a free site and that there are underage posters and readers. Keep everything within reason, without hate, and keep it above four letter words. Other than that I'm open to whatever. And in all actuality, the policing of the site truly comes down to the staff and mods, the up and down votes are just a tool to help them monitor people going overboard. I have two rules for my posting practices on here, remember there are kids, and don't be like M1EK.
-The Aristocrats!
Yes
I'm actually less concerned with all fans feeling comfortable. That is clearly an order too tall to serve, though it would be nice if some folks could be a little more respectful.
NSFW, well, that's going to be an issue for some and maybe not an issue for others. These images and GIFs are popping up with enough frequency that I'm bound to come across one within the first three forum or buckshot threads I browse in a short time period. I'm salaried and I work long days... my hours aren't set and I take mental or lunch breaks, often with my work laptop. I work for a large company, and my employer respects and expects this will happen. They also expect that the sites I visit for personal reasons will be respectful. 11w used to fit this bill without issue, and that has changed over the last 6 or so months as 11w has grown in popularity. I can't tell you how many times I've shut down my browser in a panic because of unexpected GIFs and lewd comments when all I wanted to do was see the latest news on my Buckeyes.
More than anything, I'm concerned about the quality of the content. I tell people 11w is the best Buckeye site because the content, staff, and commentors are top-notch. I feel like I'm in the know and a member of something kind of special. It's the difference between being in TBDBITL and seeing the hot mess that is Wisconsin's band. I feel proud and glad I'm not a part of that cluster. These posts generally do not further the conversation and they take the quality of debate and conversation down quite a few pegs. I've been on this site as a lurker and member for over 2 years. Eleven Warriors is better than this.
You are not alone.
Exactly Jason, as a woman that frequents this site, I have been bothered by all the sexual innuendos, pictures and comments. I find it degrading to all women. I am very happy that this has been brought to your attention and the attention of the 11W community. I wanted to address this for some time but did not feel comfortable bringing it up. I hope this gets the attention of the posters of this type of material. Thank you Jake for posting this!
Glad to see a female poster speak up on the issue!
Agree 100%. Censorship and/or rules will come into existence when the boundaries of freedom of speech have been breached. This applies not only here, but in the whole country as well. Freedom of speech can only exist if there are self-imposed boundaries in place. I think we are on the fringes of that boundary with some of the gifs that are being posted. We just need to use common sense when posting in here.
No disrespect intended.
However, I would not assign the NSFW label to this site.
Some of the pics(mainly KU) are a little risque, but complaining about the cheerleaders is a bit much.
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
Obama, homophobia, and now racy photos...can we try to keep these threads focused on less controversial issues like Ohio State football, Buckeye basketball, and gun control?
the point of this one is to keep the threads on non-controversial issues, like racy photos of women.
While we respectfully disagreed on the Oregon cheerleader pics awhile back, Steen, I can definitely see the concern over the Upton photos and others like it. Those can go a little too far and your point becomes a more valid with them.
I think there is a possible solution for this though. I think someone alluded to it, maybe the OP, but why not create a check box or button within the image or media boxes that says NSFW? On the website 8 Tracks you can create playlists ranging from 8 songs to 25 (I think) and let other people listen to them and listen to others as well. They have a check box that you can click when creating a playlist to let people know that it is not safe for work and it allows for those at work to skip over it if they choose to. Would this be a viable option? Obviously it'd still be left up to the discretion of the poster and with that comes the subjectivity of the site that someone alluded to in this thread (see the edit below). But for those who use it responsibly and understand the importance behind it, it could really clean up a lot of the images we see in the forums. It may be asking a lot though as I'm sure the programming behind that could be difficult but it's worth thinking about, in my opinion.
Edit: It was in this comment from Gray Box
Anything is possible. My only complaint is that I don't have a choice right now other than not coming here. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this site and therefore a seemingly really lame reason for people to not be able to come here for things not related to the purpose. I have been part of forums that had a thread dedicated to that and therefore one could just not open the thread. That site quickly went to the most profane user sigs on the net... I think we all know what that site is. If a post that contains pics for guys to gawk and degrade women were selectable to be at least hid I wouldn't have to ever say anything because it wouldn't effect me directly. If I wanted to be offended I would have the choice without the choice being don't come here. It would be sad to see the staffs wished not addressed because the community is so low brow they cannot see the obvious and immediate issue with going that route on post.
So far it isn't bad enough to leave, but worth addressing. Recently we are trending that way. It is sad that generally agreed upon levels of respect in normal daily conversation and social situations are thrown away because this is the internet.
Don't forget racism, that was part of the Gene smith conversation too.
I am glad that this is being brought up, and it is a noble cause. Good luck! I like steensn and jake, I have voiced concern after images are posted and been crushed.
I have plenty of useless stickers to spend on this issue ;) I'm WAY over the 100 stickers and don't need the rest...
trying to dictate non-graphic, policy compliant images on a website forum, so it can be viewed from your work-place.
First off, we are not talking about nudity or images of sex.
2nd- I can see logging onto 11W while at work, but if you're digging deeper than the Buckshots, GrayBoxes, or staff-produced front page material, then maybe you should focus on your job a bit more, and save your OSU athletic website archeology on the forums till after-work time. And yes, telling someone to focus on their job-while at work is the exact same as telling someone that a lady in a swim suit is not appropriate.
I got hooked on coming to this site and viewing it daily, before the influx of imbedded images/videos and GIF's began, so they aren't the reason I love 11W, but I really don't have or see a problem with them.
Well put John Blair...and Go Bucks.
Two good points. In making your second point, though, you began to realize that you ran yourself into the same trap as we all run into:
Or, telling someone to focus on their job while at work is the same as telling someone not to spend all their free time away from work buried in the virtual world of electronic devices, largely ignoring their friends and loved ones who are literally in the same rooms with them - in part because they're not allowed in their workplaces to use such devices in a social capacity.
As you suggest, though, such lecturing can lead to a never-ending, vicious cycle. Since lecturing others on how they ought to live outside 11W isn't going to get us anywhere, we have to go back to making our arguments on 11W terms.
Besides, let's be honest: if all of us were both tireless worker bees as well as ever-present in our personal lives, 11W would have lower traffic.
One again, I feel like both of you are completely missing the underlying point. It's a community built on respect for one another. The rationale behind the request is absolutely not unfunded, but it's not necessarily the reasons that matter here - it's having respect for the opinions and requests of others.
A couple of things for my side:
1. The picture was in sports Illustrated, a magazine you'll see everywhere (I.e. waiting room of doctors..), so please try to keep some perspective on the particular picture in question.
2. I agree that NSFW photos shouldn't be posted, I have held back on a few I wanted to post because I wasn't sure if they were appropriate or not (neither we as revealing as that shot). I guess, where is that line that should be made for future knowledge?
3. I can understand some reservation of a few here, but if your work wouldn't allow you to visit si.com (which those photos are on the front page there) then one would ask why would expect to able to go here and not have the same problem with the adds that we see on the side? If those are fine, why was this one not?
I don't mean to come across as attacking people, but just wonder if sometimes some don't see the entire picture (which maybe I'm not here either, in honesty.). Keep the debate open please...
+1 Thank you GoBucks96! You make a couple of the same points I was trying to make earlier. I really wish someone would respond to my 5 points A Rebuttal... post up above. Most of the pics being talked about are from a sports magazine posted in a sports forum. I don't know what would make someone uncomfortable about one of the top people in the world in their line of work, in a very respected and highly regarded profession at that, doing her job. She has worked extremely hard to become one of the bests people in the world at what she does, which would actually fit the definition of highbrow by the way. Kate Upton is obviously very proud of her work and wants people to see it. It doesn't hurt her or anyone view her at her job, so why would others be offended? I wouldn't be offended if there were male models in their underwear posted on here, so why would anyone be offended at a female modeling in a sports magazine? I know a lot of woman that would actually be offended that women are being shunned, frowned upon and looked down at just for modeling. I can see the act of disrespecting the people/women in the pictures as not acceptable, but how are the pictures themselves in anyway offensive(which has been a main focal point throughout this thread)? I won't be posting any pictures even close to these ever again on here because I no longer feel comfortable doing such a things. I have seen some good pics of recruits and players recently, but they had their shirts off, so I will not be posting them on here as I do not want to offend anyone. I just hope that no one posts pictures when the Arnold Classic comes around as that will surely offend a lot of people on here! (Please if you're going to respond to this, make sure you read my two above posts so you have a more comprehensive view of my stance.)
Gray Box,
I believe you were a target of a preemptive strike. As in, I don't think you were over the line as much as the avenue in which that picture could lead the site down.. Some people won't like looking at women dressed in sexual manner. I/we get that. It's going to happen sometimes in a website talking about football. Sorry. I think the reason for the responses is/are they don't want that content to become common place and further fall down into a path that isn't anything or than a 'R' rating.
Face it, anyone can get offended over any post. That's why they have the voting method to limit it. However, they want to make sure we (as posters on this very cool site) remember that it is not just guys who don't mind seeing these pictures.
I wouldn't sweat it. I think Geneieve Morton is better anyways!
+1 Go Bucks, I think you have a very good point with the slippery slope here. I'm actually really enjoying this thread and everyone's varrying points of view. There have been a lot of them and people have been able to both express them and debate them in s civil and intelligent manner. A type of discourse I love!
Part of my post there, that I think you were referring to, was to kind of to point out that being uncomfortable about something as natural and beautiful as the human body, can in fact make others uncomfortable. There is no harm or disrespect in the pictures themselves, so to be so sensitive to it can make others feel uncomfortable and weary to post things that are completely fine to post.
Another big point I alluded to earlier, but don't think I made very well, is about women's rights. I was living in Columbus when they replied the law that woman had to cover their breasts. This was a big step in equality and women's rights. I know so many people that were so happy because of this. I think that telling women to cover up just because it makes you uncomfortable is a huge step backwards for woman's rights! People trampling on other people's rights solely because it makes them uncomfortable and no other reason, makes me uncomfortable. I agree that disrespecting the woman, or if they happen to be men, in such pictures is unacceptable, however I think it is just as disrespectful to these same woman, and their rights, to tell them to cover up.
kudos to you Gray Box in keeping an open mind on this...
+1 Kudo to you my friend, kudos to you! The whole argument to me seems very sexiest and really just spitting in the face of woman's rights/equality! We can admire the barely clothed bodies of football/sports players and how well they treat their bodies and take care of them, but as soon as a picture of a woman, out of a sports magazine, is posted, it can only be viewed as sexual in nature?! We can't put the same admiration in the way she has kept up her body and has been at her profession as we do with men? This is not just sexist, but it is objectifying and degrading women just as much as the posters that make crude comments. It's also a huge slap in the face to the woman who have fought so hard to to get the equal right of not having to cover their breasts/chest just like men don't have to. These sexist and demoralizing points of view make me rather uncomfortable.
Again, this really comes down to what 11W's wants as it is their business and their livelihood. If they say they don't want it on their site, this is an issue I don't really have a problem complying with. In fact, as I've previously stated, I'm already going to be much more mindful of others and steer away from posting this type of stuff in the future; even though I don't think it I should have to. i respect others enough on here to at least consider what everyone has voiced in this thread before I do something like that again.
Look at the comments and tell me that they are the same thing. A women running 100M dash or swimming in a bathing suite at the Olympics doesn't draw the "I'd bang her" comments. These do, so please don't act like context doesn't make a difference. It is clear that it does because the reactions to them are significantly different.
To say looking at a mans chest is is equivalent to looking at a women's chest is missing some very clear and obvious physical and genetics issues that are... well rather apparent. Men and women are equal, but not the same. To simplify the conversation down to "we should all be able to do the exact same thing" clearly ignores then the reality of the situation. Women's breast are VERY sexual to men and attract an illicitly sexual response in almost all cases. To say that a man's chest does that in most cases clearly misses the reality and makes me "rather uncomfortable" because it shows how stupid an argument people will make to give a reason to gawk and sexualize women and then lie about it later.
Any man who saw that picture and didn't immediately have to stop a chemical and genetic response to what they saw (or in this case it was clear MANY did not) is lying. To then, frankly, lie about it and try to use an uninsightful argument like "why can't we just be 100% the same" misses the fact that we aren't the same and won't ever be unless we evolve to a point where we reproduce like single celled organisms with no sexual drive.
Frankly, women don't feel uncomfortable when you don't talk about how you want to bang them or bang another girl. They generally DO feel uncomfortable and objectified when you post racy pictures of women and talk about banging them. If one thinks women feel empowered by the later, I'm sorry but you have missed life in general... you have to be kidding or lying to yourself...
It is clear that we accept this and women are against it because it is made into law for sexual harassment, mostly in the workplace. For all the "equality" women have worked for you state, they made it clear that it doesn't mean they can be then objectified.
I guess after being in high school, college, the tech and bar industries, I have heard those types of comments about women, especially in Olympic events like gymnastics and beach volleyball and yes even runners and especially swimmers as well. Believe me, they provoke the same type of reaction if not more due to the motions and sounds assosiated with those sports.
There are many many women, and men, that find men's chests every bit as sexually desirable as most men find women's breasts sexually attractive. They might not be as vocal or disrespectful as the guys are, but they sexual attractiveness is just as much there for the women as the men. If anything this just shows how it is a subjective matter. It's the persons opinion that a woman's breasts are more attractive or a man's chest is more attractive. No matter how much it is hardwired into someone it's not a fact that breasts are more attractive. The whole world could believe that Santa Clause exists, but that doesn't make it a fact that he exists. Just because many people personally enjoy these pictures sexually, does not make them sexual, it's the eye of the beholder that does. The lack of response of women gawking over a man isn't the lack of sexual attractiveness, but rather a sign of respect, for both the men and themselves. The disrespect of these pictures is not the pictures or Kate Upton's fault, but the lack of respect by said posters no matter how sexually aroused they may get. (This may be a little extreme) but it's similar to the thought process of, she dressed that way, she was asking to for it, when a woman gets raped. I don't think anyone on these boards agrees with that line of thinking so, why if a woman in a sports magazine that does modeling, it is the picture(which is ultimately the woman's) fault? They didn't ask to be, or set out to be, disrespected and objectified. Much like your previous post (which by the way I thought was very very good) about setting a standard and higher bar of thinking. Woman have been trying to do that with their bodies and not having to hide and cover them up. If they are free to expose them as men do, with out objectification, they can progress out of being just thought of as sexual beings and more as human beings.
Just because it may cause a reaction that is even genetic and/or chemical doesn't mean it has to evoke disrespect and objectification.
None of those pictures posted talked about the, "want to bang them or bang another girl". That was the posters that came after and not the pictures/woman's fault. Most women I know think that it is empowering and a God given right to be able to pose in pictures like that. The poster's rude comments doesn't change the pictures anymore then someone listening to a song and interpreting it differently changes the meaning of that song. To that person, and for some songs it's millions of people, it evokes feelings and meaning that the song actually isn't about. Something like Dave Matthews "Crash" is actually about a stalker but many people think it is a love song. These peoples misinterpretations of the song doesn't change the song.
Gray Box...I can only suppose that this is your day off...lots of thinkin', lots of keystrokes, lots of commentin' going on. Hope it is not on your company's dime.
“...indomitable in victory, insufferable in defeat.” Woody Hayes
Fact: people have made comments like that here.
The issue is not the exception to the rule but rather the opposite. Most men didn't watch the Olympic women swimmers and think about them sexually. Most men looking at that picture I mentioned DID look at it sexually. There are some that broke both of those molds. Further, the point of a swimmer wearing less clothing is because it helps them compete, it makes them faster. The point of sports illustrated having women in bikini's is for men to lust over them and sell more magazines because of that interest. It is all about intent and the general reaction to the situation that makes anyone with the ability to objectively tell the difference easily differentiate the two. If someone posted a picture of an Olympic swimmer for the same reasons Kate Upton's picture was posted I would make the same comments. But Kate Upton is absolutely selling her body in a sexual manner to make money, and it is working. The Olympic swimmer has no intent on any of that, they just want to perform the best.
If we cannot agree that these are two distinct situations, with two distinct clear motives, and tow distinct general reactions then this conversation should end. There is no more clear cut difference between the two than there possibly ever could be.
90% of which are men. Let's be honest here. When was the last time you looked at a women dressed like that and didn't have visions of sugar plums dancing in your head. Yeah, a man can look at a woman like that a say she is beautiful, but the sexual connotations are there.
Is it true that the Swimsuit edition gets displayed at Dr.'s Offices? Or are you just referring to the normal SI magazine? I am asking because i don't know.
It depends on the Doctor. Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, absolutely. Pediatrics which is my field, not so much.
No they don't because it is socially unacceptable to do so. That is why it is considered sexual harassment when you do it.
I don't know what you're trying to say here - perhaps you might rephrase. If I'm missing the points you want me to make, maybe don't respond to me? Maybe respond to the people who are dealing with the points you want to discuss?
Let me try one last time to be crystal clear about this: I am not disagreeing with anyone - Jake or Steensn - about NSFW girl pics. I don't post NSFW girl pics, myself, and am I partly persuaded by arguments for why they should be off-limits here. In a response to Jason (above), I clarify that I am defintely in favor of cleaning up the more gratuitous examples of "horndoggery."
As for respect, I stand by my "actions," so to speak, at 11W, where I make every effort to be respectful of the opinions of others. Can you give me examples of when I wasn't?
Respect is a two-way street, though. From my perspective, visitors to sites like 11W ought to respect that everything might not be on their terms, either.
It is the approach you have taken to say that the reasons we are given are not true or valid, attacking the fact some of do get time during the workday for breaks sufficiently long enough to dig into the site further than the front page. Your opinion is not on the topic at hand, but us... and that feels like an odd way to show an opinion on the subject when you don't actually comment on the issue but rather our work habits... which frankly have been a great success for me.
If I'm wrong, so be it. A lot of individuals make up this site, and like snowflakes, no two alike. I'll continue to visit the site, and adhere to the site commenting policy. I'm not here to try and change policy, just give an opinion. Posters trying to shape policy should be prepared for the opposing viewpoint.
Straw man argument. I have a one hour lunch and several 15 minutes breaks. I don't need to "work harder" and have plenty of time to dig deeper. We are a community clearly trying to set a level of standards, don't presume others are not fulfilling some obligation in there life by being here.
The issue is whether it is a respectful and acceptable type of post in this community or not. To be clear, it is generally accepted as not accepted in most social situations... and in fact it's illegal in some. I would expect that generally accepted, socially unacceptable type demeanor would also be undesirable in a community that has no need for it, because it provides no value to the point of us being here.
To diminish this to "don't tell people what they should be doing" misses the point of a community. It misses the point that what we are talking about is a completely and utterly off topic issue and we are not supposed to take post off topic. It misses the point that this community has rules already and already tells people what they cannot and can do. It is a straw man argument that misses the fact humans have lived on a premise that the community sets the standards on what people can and cannot do, whether by laws or guidelines. Why can't I post political stuff here? Why tell me what I can or cannot do? Because it sets s standard for this site and the purpose. Why can't I post gruesome pictures of dead people right after a cheerleader pic? I'd get voted to death in 5 minutes and I wouldn't have you supporting my right for you not to tell me what to do. You would be appalled... because there are lines you don't cross.
This discussion is about those lines and not about people "telling people what to do." It is a nonsensical argument that has no meat to it. It is like saying something is bad because it is "different." Why is that an issue? You can't tell people what to do because "it's wrong to tell people what to do." Why? We do it all the time, that is what social rules, laws, etc. Why can't I just berate you right now and call you names? Generally everyone would be offended and call me out. stop acting like we can't propose someone's actions are unacceptable in this community because it is "not ok" for someone to tell others what they can and cannot do or "we should be working" instead.
I don't work for your company. I adhere to 11W commenting policy. Until that (where I work, commenting policy) changes, upvotes, downvotes will decide what flys. For those of you that want censorship of images, you must be prepared for others to be opposed.
The topic is really such a molehill, that gets built into a mountain, when some say maybe you should refrain from the internet forums at work, others counter with saying viewing the pictures trend towards the perverted. Both directions the discussion goes, it starts to put pressure on what we want to do with our free time, and our views of decency. 11W dictates the content, until that changes, your vote is your ammunition to counter content.
3 weeks till the Big 10 basketball tournament, less than 2 months till Spring Ball. Yippeee!!
John,
Well said... People are blowing this completely out of proportion.
+1 Go Bucks! I was really enjoying the conversation on here for a while. No it seems like a practice in futility and I don't feel like I'm getting anywhere. I personally wasn't trying to make it a big deal, as I put up the white flag and agreed not to really post this stuff anymore after my first thread, however I was enjoying the conversation and other points of view on the subject. Now it just seems like I'm talking to a wall and no one cares about sexism and women's rights and equality as human beings, those types of topics are "stupid" and "idiotic" and even "delusional" when I bring them up. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted, I'm going back to check out the recruiting forum. Who knows if I'll be back here or not....
I use my downvotes for this reason, I get asked "Why would someone downvote this," and I state my reason. I have only reacted to someone questioning my downvote or someone addressing the issue. These photos have no context to this sites content and I voicing my opinion as a member of the community here on why I cast my vote and what I would like to see less of and why. Please refer to any conversation on this on how it gets started other than this thread...
Further, to suggest someone shouldn't visit the site during work when the supposed content of this site is supposed to be work appropriate is a nonsensical argument upholding off topic post (against 11W policy). It is supporting something generally never related to the thread and quickly leads to 5-10 post on how "hot someone is," "which one I would pick," etc. That is the perfect example of taking a thread meant for OSU football, basketball, etc. the wrong direction. To support that is to support post against the guidelines already in place.
Nothing has derailed a thread faster (almost, which is why politics are not allowed explicitly), so repeatedly, that off topic pictures of women... nothing.
Any photo's of cheearleaders or women by 11W commenting policy can only ever be within policy in a "other sports" forum or "off-topic" forum. Cheerleader pictures and Kate Upton have zero connections to football, recruiting, and basketball. Start a thread on cheerleaders (in the other sports forum) or Kate Upton (in the off topic forum) in the appropriate location and you have a point. Until then they are an off topic post that takes the focus of the thread from the original poster's topic to something completely different.
thread not necessary.
a lot of stuff posted on here should not be considered as NSFW. I will agree though that the upton picture is considered nsfw. I would say that stands in the minority though. The pictures of cheerleaders and etc. are going to be common occurrences on a sports website and about 99.9% are posted without the intent to offend.
"Winter is coming" - Urban Meyer
This thread's word count per post is entirely too damn high when its subject matter can be summed up as "Please limit the bewbs photos, guys. Thx."
Just use some basic judgment, y'all.
If everyone were as pithy as you, how would academics make a living?
I tried that... didn't work and I got lambasted...
Naked or half-naked women? I fail to see a problem here.
In all seriousness, though - I have no problem with NSFW stuff as long as it's labeled as such. If you see a "NSFW" label, you've been warned. If you click on the link anyway, whatever happens is your fault, because you didn't have to look. That said, I've never seen anything on here that is NSFW that was directly posted to the page and unavoidable.
Class of 2010.
Give me the option to get my buckeye content and discussions without seeing that crap and I can't complain. But that is not the case at the moment and therefore the issue. No one can seperate the two...
Good posts here mostly.
I actually am more put off by the begging for upvotes by the posters of the pics and even more so by the paparazzi comments afterwards.
The work argument is overblown a little, as most employers don't want you to be surfing 11W regardless of whether there are half-naked women.
While I would probably lean against inclusion of objectionable stuff, I think that scrolling past the smut is the better policy. I generally don't buy into protecting the sensibilities of the squeamish as an overriding policy imperative.
Additionally, in light of the recent controversy over GL issues, I believe that citing the sensibilities of women readers unjustifiably stereotypes said women readers as heterosexual and I resent the homophobes who raised the issue
You first points are good, but was it absolutely necessary to bring that last part into this conversation? That has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation and didn't need to be brought up. I'll be honest and tell you that I have downvoted this because there is absolutely no reason for it. Just comes off as if you're trying to ruffle feathers. For the love of the Fonz, let's not go there.
Agree with the last part being ridiculous but i would also add that the whole concept of NSFW isnt about protecting the squeamish its about literally whether you can look at something or not at work. I can look at some buckeye news as part of water cooler type stuff but I cant look at kate uptons lower back.
I'm not necessarily saying that I agree (or even disagree) his posts by saying they're good. What I'm referring to is that he's on topic and making valid points. Agree or disagree, he's contributing to the topic at hand with those comments. It's the last paragraph that goes off on a completely unrelated tangent that has no bearing on this conversation in a way to bring back a topic of conversation from another thread...it's unnecessary and will only cause trouble.
May not come off that way, but that's what I meant when I said his first few points were good.
Frankly that is not true... a lot of white collar workers have plenty of opportunities to use their breaks for work.
I recently wrote this for my Facebook friends. I may be in the minority... Maybe not, but some of you may appreciate this perspective.
Dear Beyoncé,
I wanted you to know that I did not see your performance at the Super Bowl. I did watch the game, but not you. Actually, I walked out of the room. I saw the previews; I knew what was coming.
It’s not that I am a prude or a self-righteous hypocrite. I have been those things at times, and still can be if I am not careful. The reason I walked out is very simple; I want to honor my wife.
I have discovered that a man should devote 100% of his sexuality to his wife (or his future wife if still single). This includes his eyes. You see Beyoncé; women today are very insecure with their bodies. They always have been, but the current deluge of partially clothed women on TV, Internet and magazine racks has only increased their insecurities. Beyoncé, you are not helping women.
Beyoncé, I have no idea why you have chosen to flaunt your sexuality. I am sure the paychecks are nice and maybe it makes you feel a bit of power. However, those are only educated guesses; therefore I will not judge you. I will say this; I don’t think little girls grow up with the desire to show off their bodies. Somewhere along their journey, for various reasons, that changes in some.
I know this. My wife and I will be married 25 years in several months. We have raised three girls. We have suffered together, celebrated together, cried together and laughed together. We have chosen to love each other no matter what, and the result is something wonderful. What we have in terms of communication, friendship and intimacy cannot be matched by any mirage of false and destructive fantasies.
So Beyoncé, I don’t know what is going on inside you. I would love to know why you perform like you did in the Super Bowl and sing Gospel songs. Is it possible that what I am saying actually makes you glad? I don’t know. I do know that I could not tune into see you, but I tuned into my wife… and we have an HD marriage. I choose to honor my wife; and I suspect I honored you at the same time.
TE
Let your hobbies and interests supplement your life, not be the main course.
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.
Not at all.
Let your hobbies and interests supplement your life, not be the main course.
Haha perfect.
Can't wait for Spring ball so we can all get back to why we really come here.
I think it is fairly easy to have a separate forum that is unmoderated to a certain extent beyond complete nudity or personal attacks. To all of the people whose argument devolved to "why are you looking at 11W at work?" I'm not sure what America you live in.
why when asked, why are you looking at 11W at work?, is there no better answer than the answer given as to why people post the pictures in question? Simply follow the commenting policy. A bathing suit, cheerleader outfit, sweaty dude workout clothes aren't nudity, and are allowed. If by chance, you can't view 11W at work, because of a picture of a swimsuit, maybe you are just shit-out-of-luck with your job, and you have to wait till you have more free time and your own computer to log on.
This is like saying "if you dont like me speeding stay off of the highway." Whatever the mods decide is fine by me but I think its reasonable to have family-friendly content on most of the site but have a separate area for the people who for some reason feel like sharing their favorite boob pics with each other. You could even call it the circlejerk forum.
I'm perfectly capable of saying what I have to say. Many, without an idea how to express their thoughts will exaggerate a discussion's points to make their point, in doing so go totally off topic.
Not sure what I exaggerated. Some people want to post pictures of hawt girls and some would prefer to be able to look at recruiting or other topics without having to quickly scroll past random such pictures. All I said was giving each group a place to be free is reasonable. You would hope people would be able to self regulate but it seems to have accelerated as the OP described. In general I think there are other better places to find such pics on the internet while there arent any better places to find buckeye news and awesome overreactions about the state of our favorite teams.
D5k,
That wasn't a very good example, IMO. They broke no laws or endangered anyone with that photo..
Your opinion is yours, but don't pretend to make something of it that isn't just to try to prove your point.
They are starting to break the laws of common sense restraint. And the point of the OP is that it is starting to be way too NSFW which is somewhat endangering. And the discussion isnt about whether rules were broken but whether rules should be tweaked. Having some warning or spoiler system would also work where the awesome hot pics were not automatically viewed by everyone. This is really internet forum 101....
Common sense restraint? By whom? This is nothing more than opinion on what you think is appropriate as opposed to someone else. Nothing more, nothing less..
NSFW is your problem, not their's. You see that don't you? Where you view this is your decision, not anyone else's.
I think you took my post a bit too personally...
oh a recruiting topic I think ill post some kate upton pics! thats what I mean by some lack of normal restraint here. if it is a post your favorite gif thread then that is different. also it is about HR people's PC opinion as much or more than my own.
this isnt about you or me individually it is about whats best for the site. lets make people click an extra button to see a nsfw picture with an embedded function. I dont think that is too much to ask.
D5K, I can only speak for the one Kate Upton pic that I posted in the a thread on the Recruiting board. It wasn't just at of no where either, someone asked to see her lower back, so I got I pic out of a sports magazine and posted it. No I didn't have to, do this, no I didn't know it would start such an uproar or believe you me, I wouldn't have posted it. I just thought on pic posted in response to someone wanting to see it wouldn't be such a big deal. I figure it would be kind of like a cheerleader sometimes is as a game. A little distraction and then right back to the thread. I didn't know people would be so disrespectful or offended or uncomfortable of a picture of a model from a sports swimsuit magazine. There were actually a couple pictures that were more reveling that I didn't post. I didn't think that one pic of Kate was, "...some lack of normal restraint...". I also won't be posting anything like that anytime soon!
Two notes, first if someone is blocked from a site from work, it will block it whether it is linked in a picture or as a text hyperlink(that is if it's actually blocked and not just a coworker or boss seeing their screen). Second, there was one other thread I did post some Kate Upton stuff in, however that was a thread in the Anything Else board which seems to be, by consensus an acceptable place to post things.
The point is at the very least it is a thread derail and at worst it can get someone in trouble at work if we dont have a way to spoiler it. Im not even necessarily lashing out at the posts themselves as much as just agreeing with the sentiment that it needs to be optional for the people who cant or dont want to view those type of pics.
Here's the situation:
1. I can look at 11W at work
2. I cannot look at Kate Upton's gray-painted butt at work because I could lose my job because someone at work does not like me and reports me.
This isn't the case with me, but understand that this is the work argument. If you post pictures in question, there a no negative consequences at this point that we know of. If you view 11W, there are possible negative consequences because of the posted pictures. The people posting the pictures have the potential to cause collateral damage. If you're viewing 11W at work and are allowed to do so, then you run the risk of coming across one of these pictures and getting into trouble, wrong place, wrong time. So in the sense of being a community of Buckeye fans, I can see the point of those requesting that the pics not be directly posted, rather a simple link with NSFW or something similar. I do think that both actions are innocent (not all the time) in their own nature, but only one of the actions has the potential to harm others.
Exactly, my boss isnt going to report me unless I produce poor quality work as a result of looking at 11w. But it is a non negligible risk that someone, probably female, could be offended by seeing a half naked woman on my screen at work and anonymously send an email to hr. This is what I mean by common sense about this. Just put a filter on this stuff in one way or another. Like I said before this is pretty basic and im surprised it wasnt already addressed but im guessing for a oong time people didnt push the envelope.
Nope, they are off topic post and not allowed...
awesome display of awesome. Maybe I should chiggidy check myself, before I wriggity wreck myself.
I also would have to agree with points from both sides. I'm a college student and I used to play football, so seeing a hot (clothed) woman or a cheerleader never really bothers me. I think one of the main problems is when the women have less and less clothing, as well as people making comments that are normally more inappropriate than the picture itself. Like others have said, I love this site, and I think there is a line between a playful picture and picture that could offend or get someone in trouble.
If there's no nip you must acquit.
I respect everyone's take on this 'issue'. Personally, I don't have a problem with it because I respect women and have been lucky enough to have had and still have some incredible ones in my life; however, I do enjoy God's (sorry atheists, dont mean to offend) artistic masterpieces. A good looking woman, whether fully or partially clothed, is much appreciated by these eyes. I suppose it is more about the context of the picture-usage rather than the picture itself. I don't think the intention of someone posting those images is to offend anyone on here, and I believe we all (at least I hope) respect the women who write for this site as well as those who leave valuable comments, and really women everywhere. If that is acheived than those type of pictures are exactly that...pictures.
There are literally millions of places on the internet to view racy pictures. I for one, like that Eleven Warriors isn't one of them. It'd be great if we could just keep this site to discussing Ohio State things.
I'm more in the boat of getting tired of coming on here and seeing someone new each day pitch a fit over something they don't agree with. If you don't agree with something, trust me, that is perfectly fantastic. Don't make the website worse than the damage already done by starting a thread to whine about it.
"Winter is coming" - Urban Meyer
Good for you. I brought this up in a calm and professional manner because it is an issue that needed to be addressed. The leader of this fine website addressed it and even went to say that he was glad that I had brought it up, so your negative opinion of this post is simply worthless to me.
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
sad moment: I was not even the one that downvoted you...
"Winter is coming" - Urban Meyer
and..if you look above, i partially agreed with it...especially the body paint pic. For the most part though you need to just get over it
"Winter is coming" - Urban Meyer
Why? I wasn't whining, I was addressing something and asking a question. I apologize that this thread has turned into an argument about the technacalities of nakedness and some guy claiming to talk in the name of women's rights so that he can see more bare-breasted women. That was not the intent. I got my response from Jason and that's why I haven't posted on this thread a whole lot since then.
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
for what it is worth...still haven't downvoted you. I understand what you are going for, but if you take a step back and look at this site over the past couple of days let alone back further than that you can see how nauseating it has become at times. People turning everything into an argument/people disagreeing with anything and everything posted/everyone being just a bit too sassy...hell...it's becoming more and more like the internet and we all know none of us want that.
"Winter is coming" - Urban Meyer
Do you want me to give you a cookie or sonething for not downvoting me?? Haha... I haven't downvoted anyone either, cheers!
I wasn't trying to start an argument on this thread.
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
bitch.....I FUCKING LOVE COOKIES!
"Winter is coming" - Urban Meyer
just in case the downvoter didn't understand.....it was a joke
"Winter is coming" - Urban Meyer
It could be people that hate cookies. I posted a kitten photo once and got a few negative responses on it. Who hates kittens or cookies?
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
---> deathly allergic to cats, but I did not downvote you;
I finished a school in San Diego once, and upon graduation the base got me the cheapest flight back to Norfolk which happened to be at 10PM. I had nowhere to go, so I crashed on a buddies couch for the day. He completely forgot the previous owner had three cats, which made for a really bad day.
"Don't put syrup on shit, and tell me it's pancakes"
No matter how sh*tty the tour is, it's always tough to leave.
What he said.
Amen
I didn't get to say anything on the last 2 posts that went on lockdown, so I had to put something on here.
turdburger!
Do what you must!
I don't think the line on pics is crossed on this site much at all...and luckily it's very easy to scroll past any pics that may cross the line... Also, CNN/SI, Fox Sports and even starting back in the 80's when TV censorship was much more strict ESPN ran soft core porn under the guise of "exercise shows". @Kiana/Denise Austin and for the ladies, they had the very sexy Gilad (the original most interesting man in the world.)
D. Anthony
It was a kind of an "exercise / work-out show" ;)
D. Anthony
you can call it whatever you want to call it but its still jerkin yer gherkin!
So the next logical step is for you to put CNNSI on blast for lovely lady of the day, Or better yet write a letter to the editor on ESPN's the body issue. Also I think you should reach out to Nascar about these nasty Danica Patrick GoDaddy ads, truly inappropriate. Also those freaking cheerleaders at the NFL games sure are promiscuous, Oh ya and if you ask me those adds for 6 dollar shirts and snorg tees on 11W are uncalled for!
coming to a website the does a stupendous job of covering Ohio State athletics, sports played by college enrolled men and women, many of whom are between the ages of 18-25 years old, and many of whom who don't really care about what you and I do every day for a living, shouldn't become a referendum on decency of the human body. 11W has it's policy, I'm here to enjoy myself.
Whomever down-voted the turdburger picture of Brady Hoke is way tooooo uptight. You should stick a lump of coal up your hiney, so you can shit a diamond.
Ha!!! sneaky Michigan trolls, I assume.
Dear 11W Staff,
Over the last few days, I've noticed that not all the content in the open forums conforms precisely to my individual sensibilities. So, I guess I'm wondering if you could change everything so that it does. If you could, that'd be great. Thanks.
I was just about to say "Anyone else hope this thread dies soon?" but it looks like you've already got that covered, so I'll just go back to my regularly scheduled program, already in progress.
Keep mocking me and those like me. My stance is not that ridiculous or uptight, sorry.
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
For the record, I don't think you were wrong to raise the issue, or that you're overly uptight. My stance on the photos is far more open, but I work from home and have a wife who is more likely to point out Upton-type photos than shield my eyes from them; that still doesn't mean I think you're wrong to raise the issue.
That said, this thread got way out of hand about 87 posts ago - I'm all for open debate, but there comes a time when a wise man know that the best thing he can do is go crack open a nice cold beer and reflect on how wise he is, and how (insert appropriate condescending adjective here) everyone else is.
This is a long thread.
Winner of the Most Neutral Post In This Entire Thread award.
I read many posts this morning and put off commenting because I just did not have the time. Came back on this afternoon to congratulate everyone for keeping this discussion extremely civil, but I found a few exceptions since my last viewing. However, for the most part, the discussion has been spirited, good natured, and all within the commenting guidelines. Given the visceral comments that have been flying around the last few days this is a welcome change.
When I first looked at this thread I thought it had the potential to turn into a real quagmire. Maybe Jason's post about commenting was really taken to heart by many here. If that is the case, it is great.
My 2 cents probably doesn't mean much, but here goes. I have not seen any pictures on here that I would not also see on many other socially acceptable blogging, social, or news sites. That includes sites like The Dispatch, USAToday, Fox Sports, FaceBook, and many, many others. The pictures in question usually only appear in the comments section on here. Depending on how sensitive you are to pictures of the human body there may have been a few posted by 11W themselves (something perfectly innocent like pics of OSU cheerleaders, or maybe a shirtless football player), but I don't recall any because I am really not offended by those types of pictures. And, as posted above, the pics on here are very similar to some of the google ads that do pop up from time to time. That is just my observation and is only offered up as such, not as any justification.
What I find most amusing about this thread is the number of men who are commenting on how women feel or should feel about the pictures on here. I know, I am another man, but my wife of 40 years is helping me with this post. She views 11W using my account. And, she says that she is not offended by any of the pics of women posted on here. However, what she was highly offended by was a comment above along the lines that 'if a woman dresses like a prostitute she should expect to be treated like one'' (please note - I am not trying to single out any poster on here, just trying to point out where this thread may have gone astray). I also find this highly offensive and sexist. Very few ladies have commented on this thread (at least from perusing the id's it appears that most posters are indeed men). I just wonder how they feel about it. I know that Sarah and Elika have also not weighed in on this subject. Might be interesting to hear from them.
And, as far as NSFS, just where do we draw the line? There have been many discussions on here that have little to do with OSU sports, including alcohol, food, and many other topics. I am sure that some people find alcohol discussions offensive (know anyone on the wagon?) Yet, for the most part many of us like the occasional diversion from the constant jock blogging that goes on. I, for one, certainly don't want to see those discussions go away.
As for the graphic content to the pics in question, there is a way to filter out all graphics to make any site safe for viewing at work or at home :
http://www.snaphow.com/4585/view-website-text-only-no-images-show-hide-images-on-demand
You never know when someone might see a pic like this,
and find it offensive. (this was posted by 11W)
One last thing, as most of you have noticed, I did change my avatar, mostly because of this thread.
Slow clap! NW Buckeye, I'm going to find and upvote some of your other posts since I can't upvote this one more then once. One of the best posts in this thread by far. I agree with all of your points! The comments from observers are being given WAY too much weight in this. If you put this into a scientific point of view you would have to completely remove the the observer if looking at the nature of the picture. The fact is that the picture used as an example evoked one funny pic response, two responses to that response pic and one other response to the pic of Kate Upton and that was it! It went back to the thread topic. The thread wasn't derailed or anything! It was a slight detail that many found enjoyable. I hope you, as well as others, will read the whole post I just made below. The one with the white flag in it. Bravo my friend and I like your avatar!
Upvotes for you my friend! You actually get the point I was trying to make. Others on here are zeroing in on the "sexual harassment" aspect of the pics. But, they are simply trying to make the site SFW at their own workplace. There are many workplaces where everything posted on here would be suitable. There are many work places where all 11W content could be deemed NSFW. You can not make 11W Suitable For Work in all work places.
However, as I stated in my original post, the end user can make 11W completely SFW if they employ the graphics filter I pointed out in my thread. Heck, I know many people use ad block to keep the annoying ads from popping up on many web sites. The examples of the google pop up ads on here are every bit as NSFW as any pics posted by the 11W users. And, the ad featured in this thread could pop up on any user's screen who had every visited an athletic clothing site on their PC.
I guess my real concern here is that I do not want to see 11W start censoring these types of pics. As you noted in your post below, there are many females who find nothing offensive about these pics. Heck, my wife thinks this thread is totally ridiculous. My feeling is that any pic that is suitable for publication in a sports magazine should be OK on here. And, anyone who truly can not view these pics at work can take measures to make sure they are not displayed while still being able to view all the text on this site.
Worrying if a small percentage of people are offended is a ridiculous concept. Just in this country there are people angrily offended by things like the American Flag, any church, gasoline burning vehicles, or the violence that is football. They certainly have a right to be offended and express their opinions freely but no one has a duty to tiptoe around life so as to avoid the negative opinions of the few.
Actually we are, it's called respect and common decency and is the bases for a lot of our public laws.
I've never done anything with my company computer except company business. I wouldn't dream of using any company resource for any personal purpose. I have a photograph of my wife and I on vacation, wearing bathing suits, on my desk. I have a picture of my niece, in her cheerleading outfit, on my desk. Not once has my Senior or any employees come to me and ask me to remove them because they're offensive. Although my white legs, clearly visible in the vacation photo, are borderline. 11W staff, don't worry about protecting me from offensive materials. I'm smart enough to do that on my own without your help. To all employees worried about violating policy, try using your iphone or your laptop and your dime while on breaks or lunch.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
You sound like an admirable employee CajunBuckeye, but what about those of us that are not prohibited from using our work computers for some level of personal browsing? This is permitted at my place of work during breaks/lunch so long as I do not violate our internet usage policy. The Upton photo would without doubt violate that policy. I don't even mind the cheerleader pics or others of attractive women. There is nothing offensive to me about suggestive sexual references. I am sure I have made some myself. However, nudity (or however close to nudity the Upton photo is) and overt sexual references are simply out of place on 11W. I could use my smartphone for visiting 11W, but I would really rather not have to because the experience isn't quite the same.
Let us not be dismissive of what is clearly becoming a real issue for some users of the site.
I would even be fine if posters included a link with a NSFW tag rather than embedding photos and videos of inappropriate material. Hell, the staff has even done this in a Skully once.
There's nothing admirable in not using something that doesn't belong to you as your own personal property. It common decency. The staff has the power to delete any post that they find inappropriate. I've engaged in some verbal sparring in the past and have had a couple of posts deleted. I don't dismiss many things, but when I do, it's usually someones opinion about what I need to say, think, view, or do.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
I hope you don't think I was being sarcastic in saying your behavior was admirable. Common decency often is. However, there is nothing wrong with using something that is not yours as your own personal property...as when you have permission, borrowing/sharing.
And yes, I am aware that staff can delete posts. That doesn't mean that they catch every objectionable post in time that it not be viewed or even that they see every post made on this site. I would be willing to bet that they don't. Nor should they have to. This is a question of what should not be acceptable for posting on this website in the first place. If someone posts a photo of blatantly inappropriate material on this website, people are going to see it before staff can do anything. They can't stop that, but I don't think its invalid or unworthy of consideration that someone should want a line drawn before that happens.
Who decides what's objectionable. Will you help me out Stu? Will you tell me what I should and shouldn't view in order to protect my delicate psyche? It's my civil right to never be offended, Stu. You owe me that. It is now your obligation to personally police the posts and keep me safe. Stu, don't worry about what other people believe. Take the moral high ground and do what you feel is right for me.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
We each decide what is objectionable. The staff of this website decides what is objectionable in this context and have every right to do so. This is what the OP and others are asking for.
I couldn't care less what you choose to view or when you are offended. There was never a question of that and I never addressed it. This has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights. What are you even talking about? Your civil rights are not being violated by limitations on what can be posted on this site. Nobody owes you anything in that regard.
It appears my post sailed over your head, Stu. "And there lies the rub." We each decide what's objectionable and we each decide what we choose to view. Your first two sentences repeat my theme. However, I don't appreciate you asking for tolerance with the OP, while stating that you don't care when I'm offended.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Could you miss the point of the thread further? The point is there isn't functionality currently within the forums to decide what we "choose to view" when there's a random hot girl pic randomly in the middle of a thread about recruiting, or football/basketball. It has nothing to do with moral judgment. It is just internet 101 to have some sort of warning system for NSFW, i.e. linking rather than embedding or embedding the picture behind some sort of "spoiler/NSFW" button. Whatever you think about using work computers for visiting 11W, the reality is many people do and those people would like to not have random hot girl pics popup on their browser when they want an update on recruiting or depth charts. This thread is entirely about having the option to choose not to view such pics.
So the point is that while your at work using company equipment and internet access you want to be able to come on the site with no chance of being caught. Did I get it? Did I get your point?
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Nope, ya clearly missed it. Go back...reread.
But if my two previous sentences are now your theme I am glad you came around to my way if thinking
No, my comprehension has never been a problem, Stu. The original title should have read, "I like to fuck off at work and cruise the internet. Could people stop posting pictures that I deem questionable on 11W? Then my employer won't catch me and fire my ass." I think I nailed it that time.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
No, the point is I can be caught looking at buckeye sports crap. Just like I can have random water cooler conversations ("did you catch the game?" "did you see all these 5 stars Urb 3:16 is bringing in?"). There's a .1% chance that if I scroll past Kate Upton that someone walks by and something results of that. That .1% chance is all we are concerned about because it is low probability but possibly high severity
I'm sorry, D5K, I'll just never see your side of it. Especially the Buckeye Sports "crap". I hope Kate Upton doesn't get you canned.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
In the approximate words of Sen. Dole, I can't define what is porn and what isn't but I certainly know it when I see it.
Not saying the pics are porn, just offering a lighter side to your question.
I can't believe this discussion is still going...
I'm with ya ABL. Actually, I can't believe they had one.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Wow - didn't realize this was such an issue. I guess you can say I was a contributor to this issue since I posted a Forum a while back about AJ McCarron's mom during the Brent Musburger news cycle. There were over a hundred comments to a picture of her (albiet with some "wide" cleavage) saying she deserved a little love since AJ's girlfriend was getting all the press, and I felt she was just as deserving.
While I don't think what I posted was offensive, or off-topic, since it had to do with something sports related that was getting huge press at the time, and that none of the comments from other posters offended me, I'm sure they may have offended others. If you look at most of the Interwebs in general though, this place is still more like Cheers than Cheetahs.
Its pretty amazing that there are only a few gratuitous comments or pictures here and there, given all the people contributing to the comments. I view this place as a sports bar, not a Chuck E Cheese, so some level of testosterone fueled commenting will not only take place, it will be expected.
I'm sure we don't want this site to devolve into some juvenile Beavis and Butthead themed commentary on every issue, and I understand that some people have delicate sensabilities and are easily offended, but it would be impossible to have a site where everyone was 100% completely comfortable with every comment and picture. While that might technically be possible, and some may wish for it, it would be flavorless to me.
I thought the AJ McCarron mom thread was great - one of the funnier all-time 11W threads. I participated in the thread, so perhaps my citing it as an example is self-serving (rationalization), but I really believe that it was "offensive" in the better spirit of 11W because . . .
The thread danced right up to the edge, but did not exhibit a high degree of gratuitous "horndoggery" (although that aspect was present in the thread). No question, it offended some folks, but that some content/discussion makes some readers uncomfortable and/or feel offended should not be a disqualifying factor on its own.
It was not, IMO, "juvenile Beavis and Butthead." It directly related to a "hot topic" that was circulating through the sports media; and the humor mostly related to the interplay between sex and intercollegiate athletics, more than the commenters' horndoggery per se (McCarron's mom chatter had followed the Tyler Hansborough's mom scandal at UNC, etc.).
If chatter/pics like those found on the McCarron mom thread are deemed off-limits, I do feel like that approach would have the potential to spoil some of the fun around here.
Thanks for seeing what I was trying to do - just having some good clean dirty fun during a time when the Buckeyes weren't "bowling".
We can choose not to click a thread like AJ McCarron's mom or post your favorite gif and steer clear of NSFW pics. We can't really avoid the random pics that have been embedded lately that are off-topic. It's easy to either make people put those in external links or embed within a "look behind this curtain for something NSFW" button.
clap.....clap.....clAP......CLAP....CLAP...CLAP..CLAP,CLAP,CLAP...
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Thanks Cajun - I might just make a pot of gumbo in your honor.....
This thread is long enough to knit a sweater, or at least a sweater-vest#JT
D. Anthony
I come in peace and waving the white flag. I am going to be much more mindful when/if ever posting this type of content again. I just wanted to leave people with a few thoughts from why I, and others that didn't post that are females, thought and still think it is acceptable to post the pictures/videos that I personally posted and have become the main example of what is wrong to post/shouldn't be posted on here.
First of all to the NSFW content opinions, I am a business owner and all of 11W is NSFW for me so anything posted on here is NSFW even if there is no picture or anything but text. It is all NSFW so the said pictures are a moot point as even being on this site is NSFW. If you want to address the break time, well if it's NSFW then it shouldn't be viewed in a place at work where others can see it even on break, and yes 11W is NSFW so viewing it at work during a break where other employees can view it makes it still NSFW even if there aren't pics on what you are viewing. The fact you are viewing something no work related can be distracting to other workers that are not on break so nothing that is NSFW should be viewed within their view even while you are on break. Your break doesn't make it anymore or less suitable for work. Also, since the pics that I posted all came out of one issue of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, if an employee walked in with an actual copy of the magazine and on their break, looked at the magazine without forcing it on other employees or customers to view it, I couldn't do anything about it. Now there could be legal ramifications, including but not limited to copy right infringement, if I let that employee use it as a tool for the business. However just them looking at it during their break and not for the company, I would personally be afraid of breaking a labor laws/rights by not allowing them to view a magazine that anyone can buy, while on their break. What if a female was looking at a Victoria Secrets' magazine while on break or a Cosmo magazine that had an almost naked pic of a guy in it? The example of the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit magazine isn't even as accurate comparison as if an employee brought in a regular Sports Illustrated magazine and was flipping through it and there was a picture from this Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Edition on one of the pages. Would your boss say how dare you bring in a sports magazine and it have a picture of a swimsuit model from another sports magazine in it and then you would get trouble for it? Would you contact Sports Illustrated and tell them that you don't want to see that type of material while reading their sports magazine and specifically that it's NSFW so will they please refrain from publishing those pictures? These pictures that are in a sports magazine from another sports magazine!
Okay, now for the reason I actually wrote another response(besides the scores upon scores of responses since my last post): I was greatly encouraged by my girlfriend to get on here and post these next few points. She actually wanted to create an account to respond herself. So, after talking to her, and a bunch of other girls (many in other country's) on this very issue, I felt inclined to post again. I was telling my GF about this issue and then just showed her the picture in debate. When she saw it the first thing she said is, "Awesome!". She was stoked to see a model that wasn't extremely too skinny; one that is almost the exact size as her. She really liked the pic that I posted especially because from that angle you can see she isn't overly skinny like most models these days. She went on to say that it was art and that the swimsuit painted on her was done with incredible detail and the people that did it were extremely talented. That's when we watched the behind the scenes video I posted of them applying the paint. She thought this was also awesome and commended Kate Upton on being able to become one of the top models in the world without being dangerously/unhealthy skinny. She saw nothing wrong with this even if it was at her work and she is a preschool teacher. She said there isn't anything in the picture that you can't see in TV commercial or in public in general (she wasn't saying that it should be hung up and forced on the kids, parents and co-workers, but thtat there wasn't anything wrong if it happened to pop-up on a screen or on a page while flipping through a magazine and she wouldn't be offended if it came up on Pintrest or another website she visits). I showed her some of the pictures of men that were posted on these boards that are deemed appropriate. She was very VERY offend and went off on how that it is completely sexist, demeaning to women and trampling on their rights. It was to the point that at first she wanted me to stop posting on here (before she then told me to let everyone know her points of view and how she feels on the subject). She thought the pic was extremely tasteful, even art and that it promotes a positive body image to woman. She said that condemning these photos is a horrible thing and will only promote poor body image that skinny models do and hurt the youth of America, including the children she teaches.
After speaking with friends of mine in other countries, and experiencing it first hand in multiple countries that I've traveled to, many women are confused why the U.S. is so shameful of woman's bodies and forces them to cover up. They said that in their countries there is far less sexual abuse and sexual violence towards women when they aren't forced to cover their bodies all the time. When breasts are more often exposed, all most all people just view them as the body parts they are and aren't overly out of control and demeaning towards women when they see them. I experienced this first hand being on the beaches of other countries where there really is no dress code. There were many many woman walking around with little to no clothes on. There were people as young as babies all the way up to the elderly on these beaches and nudity from people in all these age groups. No one on these beaches were so genetically or chemically possessed that they had to disrespect the girls with little to no clothing on just because of their dress apparel (or lack there of it). No one thought it was okay to disrespect these women just because their natural bodies were exposed. This was even held true in the United States when I stayed at the Wynn in Las Vegas and went to the European style pool or when I've been to concerts and festivals that have women walking around topless. Men are still respectful and almost never demeaning purely due to the exposed skin of a woman.
People I've talked to, mainly women and including my GF, point out that there is nothing sexual about the pictures themselves. That if you take out the observer (which by scientific standards needs to be done) there is nothing sexual about the picture itself which by definition would make the picture not sexual in nature. The act of bringing in an observers's point of view doesn't change the nature of the picture. The observer's reaction still doesn't make the nature of the picture sexual either. There is nothing factually sexual about the picture itself and is easy to see that when you take out the observer and the observer's point of view, neither of which have anything to do with the actual nature of the picture. It was pointed out that an outsider's point of view which evokes purely sexual and/or disrespectful emotions (especially when vocalized) is the very definition of sexual objectification. Since Kate Upton was not portraying herself as a sexual object in the photo, that if an observer or anyone else does, no matter what there excuse is (even genetics or chemical reactions) it is by definition sexually objectifying woman and therefore disrespecting and hurting women along with their rights.
There are many more points, and content to the points I made here, that came up in conversations with my friends that I didn't included in here mainly due to it already being far too long. I just wanted to express to you these other points of view and leave you with a few ideas from both my side and the female perspective as I was highly encouraged to share them with you all. Now, again, I don't plan on posting any more of this type of content on here (even though there are people [women and myself included] that feel it's very sexist and hindering to the progression of woman's rights, when denying the ability to post things on here). I also very highly respect the wishes of 11W, both as a poster and as a business owner. I don't plan on posting anymore in this thread (unless asked to and/or responded to, to the point I feel the need to then respond once again). If anyone does feel the need to respond to this post, please respond to all of the points even if you agree. There are five paragraphs I make major points in. Beginning with the second paragraph; the one that stars with the word 'First'. Maybe for each paragraph you can use a numerical system like 1. Agree 2. Disagree: And state why you disagree 3... and so on. I hope it has been informative and thought provoking to have some more points of view, including female and worldly points of view, that may have not been brought up much previously in this thread.
First, thanks for your attempt to clearly state your thoughts...
As a business owner I would hope you have a better grasp of the law. Non work related material is NOT "any contents not work related." Unless as a business owner you have made that rule.
NSFW is clearly things that can get you fired, which can vary business to business. But what does not vary is the clear letter of the law. Pictures like these that are clearly sexual, whether they are artistically sexual or just sexual, are easily against the law that states employees should be free of anything that creates a sexual harassment situation. Tricky thing here is that the only time you get in trouble is if someone feels that way. But as a business owner you and your workers need trained in sexual harassment.
One thing that is always made clear is the fact that if a coworker feels uncomfortable because of sexual conversation or images (whether or not they are directed at her) is considered sexual harassment. One trip to the HR department and you got yourself a lawsuit that could bankrupt your business. If you are not aware of this, I suggest getting some training. I have always worked at a place that gives this training once a year to at least the managers so I know the material well by now.
if someone walks in with the SI and a female feels that it is creating a sexually uncomfortable workplace, you can easily taken action against that individual to many different degrees.
I hope that you assess the need for this training if you truly think these pictures are not a prime example of a potential sexual harassment lawsuit. Further, if you feel no company would ever allow their workers to look at non-work related material you have been self employed too long. Frankly that thought process doesn't reflect reality in the least bit.
i hope you not continue to blur the line of NSFW to anything not work related and further, if you are not convinced that the SI swimsuit edition is not grounds for a sexual harassment suite I hope you don't find out the hard way.
---------
regarding the female response, my wife says you are all a bunch of pigs and naive if you can't get past your own BS attempt to say that picture is not sexual nature and doesn't promote a perfect example of a piece of material prime for a sexual harassment lawsuit. She says the level of self convincing here is about what she expected from teenagers...
Sorry, she is very direct...
-------
regarding whether it is sexist or not, that is a non starter because the same sexually suggestive pictures of men fall into the same category. Is equal treatment, you're just not going to see guys posting pictures of dudes like that on a forum like this very often. It's just as much as a risk in the workforce flip side for men. 100% equal rights for both set of idiots... No regression on fake idea of fair treatment issues.
My company does sensitivity training yearly as well, Steensn. We also require the signing of a moral and ethics clause for employment. All content not work related is strictly forbidden. I will assure you that a copy of SI's swimsuit addition in my reception area will not get me sued for sexual harassment. My wife got a good laugh at your female response also.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Frankly, the idea that some people here can't see the issues is astoundingly too representative of how stupid men are. I hope you don't find out the hard way that the swimsuit issues is chalk full of sexual harassment fuel.
My company has just had a suit settled in Oct. of last year. I will assure you again that the swimsuit issue in and itself alone, is not a sexual harassment case.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
No, but it is fuel for one. I never said just there presence is a law suit. They are however wildly inappropriate in the workplace.
http://www.businessknowledgesource.com/blog/stupid_things_that_people_do...
The majority of the sensitivity training is designed to eliminate all the possibilities. If the employee made no comments or had any behavior that could be deemed harassment, the calendar would be a big stretch. I doubt if the calendar would be allowed to remain if other employees filed a complaint.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Correct, and if asked to stop and they continued it would be an issues. Further, the pictures elicit a reason to have comments and conversations that are directly sexual harassment Ben if not directed to the person who feels it is inhibiting their ability to work. It's fuel, it's a spark that leads to a fire, it is too much risk for a workplace and therefore generally explicitly not allowed from the getgo.
Steensen and Gray,
You both articulated some wonderful points in an intelligent manner; some that I agree with, some that I do not. I choose not to get into that. My only point is that it makes me sad when I can't look for Buckeye news when at work- let's presume during lunch- for fear that a half naked man/women will show up on the screen.
I just want Buckeye news without someone botching it up for me.
Thank you 11W community for your consideration.
How about looking at 11W on your own phone or ipad at lunch. Then, you don't have to be sad anymore.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
haha, I am 32 and my phone is from 1985. But seriously, my phone does not have that capability and I do not pay for data. Basically I am lame and out of luck...
oh and it should say woman in the above post from me, not women. Further proof of my lameness.
How about I don't have to do that because I have a job where I don't have to do that. Also, this point has been made 500 times already in this thread and it is flawed/incorrect.
It isn't too much to ask to not embed pictures directly that are NSFW. Literally every forum that has been around long enough has done this in the history of the internet.
Just trying to add levity. But I will still be sad.
D5K, I am always amazed here that a generally accepted practice of keeping NSFW stuff labeled as such and separate is treated with such disdain. Like we are infringing on some God given right and asking for something so impracticle and unacceptable. It literally is the common practice on most messaging boards. Somehow it becomes a moral and freedom argument. It's like half the people here have never been on the Internet before...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and in no way shape or form at any time have I, am I or will I attempt to give legal advise.
STEENSN, your response had me talk to my lawyer. I have had a lot (I'd even say more then most people) of training, dealing with lawyers on this subject and even having to deal with sexual harassment first had while both working for others and owning multiple business. I didn't feel what you had posted was legally factual, but to cover myself and business, I emailed my lawyer the pic and your post I'm responding to STEENSN.
Here is what my lawyer told me. I am just relaying you this information and not trying to present it as any type of legal advise, especially not of my own. At first my lawyer thought I had posted what was your post. He told me to take it down immediately because it could easily be interpreted as offering legal advise and I don't have a law degree to give legal advise. He said the thing that might be able to save me is that it is legally not even close to being accurate. I stopped him and made it clear that I had not posted it, that another had posted it as a response to mine. After he understood that, he could not see anything legally inappropriate with an employee viewing this picture, especially if it came up on a site they were viewing. He put it like this: it would be similar to an employee watching a show in the break room and that picture coming up on the show or a commercial. Neither the company nor the employee would be held accountable or could be charged with a sexual harassment lawsuit. It actually made him laugh about having this picture coming up on a website and causing a sexual harassment lawsuit. He said it would easily be dismissed by almost any judge before it ever got to a court room. He said if there was anyway that it did get to court, he would love to try it, as a counter lawsuit for a frivolous lawsuit would be a slam dunk, easy case for him to win. He pointed me to this legal definition of Sexual Harassment: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment. Now different states and even cities have different laws and/or slightly different definitions, but he said this is going to be pretty close to what most will use. As you can see this picture does not violate anything in the actual legal definition of sexual harassment. Even if they brought in the actual issue. As long as they weren't intentionally using it in a way that fits in the definition. A work place can deem it NSFW, but it wouldn't fall under sexual harassment in the legal sense of the word.
I know that most HR departments I've ever dealt with are overly cautions. I believe for a couple reasons. First is they usually aren't lawyers so they aren't well versed in the actual laws and secondly, it's usually just easier to stop anything even close rather then risk it as they aren't very knowledgeable in the law and just want to avoid any conformation or other problems that could arise. It doesn't make it actual sexual harassment just because an HR department claims it is or doesn't want to deal with an issue. Not in the eyes of the law anyway.
I don't feel that I'm blurring the lines of NSFW material at all. At no job I have ever worked, landscaping, dental lab technician, referee, umpire, grocery store 'butcher', webmaster (multiple times), head of marketing, national project manager (which I had deal with billion dollar companies as well as flew from California to meet with Ohio State a few times), other jobs I forgot, or businesses I've owned has anything been acceptable that wasn't work while I was working. This would include talking about sports to other employees while not on break, sitting there and just thinking and not working, being on ANY website that is work related or distracting other employees in anyway while I was on break. I have never held a job that it wasn't a fireable offense to not work when they were paying me. Now some things may get you a warning, or even more warnings then others, but they were all firable and didn't make then NSFW just because you may not get fired the first time you did it. Everyone of my many bosses at my many jobs deemed them to be NSFW and I do the same with my businesses. When I used to sit in a cube, and on a computer all day, I wasn't allowed to view things that were distracting to others either. I had to go to the break room or somewhere that it wouldn't distract them. I can even site 11W directly at this because I used to hit Buckeye sites during my breaks and the other Buckeye fans in the office would get distracted by seeing me on the sites and come over and ask what the news was. I was asked not to do this. If I continued I easily could have been fired for going to 11W and I as an employer would do the very same thing if one of my employees did this. So I don't think I blurred the lines of NSFW even slightly at any point. I am confused on how something that is not doing work, distracting you from doing work and/or distracting others from work (even if you are on break), isn't NSFW. Every job I have worked at has both deemed it NSFW and a firealbe offense and I as well deem it NSFW.
---------------------
I've said sexual in nature as well as you, and now your wife, have used "sexual in nature" when describing this picture. I still haven't gotten an answer from anyone on 11W to what makes the picture in question sexual in nature. The actions of an outside observer does not have any effect on the actual nature of the picture. The observes aren't Kate Upton so they don't have an effect on the nature of the picture. They weren't there when the picture was taken so they can't effect the actual nature of the picture. What is Kate Upton doing in the picture that insinuates sex that would cause it to be sexual in nature? I admit that people can be sexually aroused by it, but plenty of people aren't and people can be aroused by even a pic a nun, a lady in a barka or even a mountain range that they think looks like breasts. The actions of the outside observers in no way shape or form would make those pictures sexual in nature. Just because an outside observer makes them sexual in their mind doesn't make the nature of the picture sexual. Some facts: Kate Upton posed for a Swimsuit magazine, not Playboy or a porn magazine or any thing to do with sex. What is makes the actual picture factually sexual and not the viewer of the picture, which is neither the picture nor it's nature.
---------------------
There are many pictures on this site of men that women find sexually arousing yet are generally viewed as fine by most 11W members. Just one example is that recently the famous poster/pic of Bo Jackson with a bat behind his back and just wearing his football shoulder pads. I had this poster when it first came out and trust me, a lot of women were sexually turned on by it. There are so many examples of this on here. Just because a man isn't posed like a woman modeling does (which is actually usually a turn off to a woman) doesn't mean that it is sexually arousing to them nor does the fact they may not be vocal about it or even admit it. I don't think that poster of Bo Jackson is sexual in nature or would warrant a sexual harassment lawsuit even though there are a lot of women that are sexually turned on by it.
-------------------
There were some other points that I made in my post you replied to that I would still like hear you, and even your wife's, point of veiw(s) on. One of them is how in other countries that have allowed this type of exposure and equality of woman's body's it has actually curbed and reduced sexual violence toward women. I won't elaborate on this point or restate the rest of them; I'll just let you respond if you wish to.
Even though like I said this is a strawman argument, I want to respond. Statistically and economically it is sexual. The picture was designed in large part to sell a ton of magazines and get more page clicks. Not for abstract art and women's rights. What is the marketing or economic reason for those page clicks if not sexual arousal? Since you brought up the law, I think this falls under the "reasonable person" standard as well since I think a massive majority of Americans would call that picture "sexual in nature" when polled. From some pure philosophical standpoint you could argue that only if a man's and woman's sexual organs are touching each other is a picture sexual, but clearly the swimsuit edition of SI has a LOT to do with sex otherwise it wouldn't exist.
I think your lost. Roll a Victoria Secret Catalog through your argument and see how it looks when it comes out the other side.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
A Victoria secret catalog s sexual as well meant to draw women to buy their products look more sexually attractive. The models are used to represent how attractively sexual you "could" (let's be honest, not many will ever look like that) look. They are sexual in nature for the same reason a women buys them. To look better scantily clad for _______.
Again, I thought I was clear that the picture in itself is not also going to get you a lawsuit. I said it is fuel for one. Given the nature of the comments that followed you then have a case. that pic will almost always elicit that response in a group of guys. Frankly, at my last two jobs had I brought that in I would have been warned. And had I done it again and again it would escalate. For mot offices it is not appropriate and can get you. To trouble. On the flip side, your experience on non-work material inside he workplace doesn't reflect the direction most businesses are going. In most white collar offices break time is free time and as long as one isn't doing something inappropriate it doesn't matter. To state because you haven't experienced that, while most here sate clearly they are allowed, really has no meaning to the conversation. Just take us at our word and move on from that point. It's archaic and not representative of most workplaces I have heard or seen.
------
i down vote those pics too and think they are inappropriate and NSFW. There is no double standard for me. Man or women in pic, it's not appropriate.
------
Correlation and causation are a tricky thing. I just farted and I'm pretty sure 3 seconds before that I blinked my eyes. In fact every time I fart I seem to blink my eyes... Must be why I fart!?
The artistic nature of the picture is not why it probably has 1 million page views on si.com. I agree with the argument about skinny vs not skinny but that doesn't make Kate Upton into some hero who isn't promoting herself through sex appeal (not that I find a single thing wrong with that, she has the freedom to sell whatever attributes she wants). I really am not sure who you are arguing with though. It seems as if you are arguing with women (or men I suppose) who might get offended or feel harassed rather than the people who just want to have a warning about NSFW material. But in general, the fact of the matter is enough women are offended (rightly or wrongly) that HR for most companies has policies in place, hence the request for NSFW warnings.
To the point about reading a physical swimsuit issue, the whole concept of NSFW is that such things are not SFW so that strawman fails. Football = SFW, swimsuit edition = NSFW in general due to sexual harassment issues.
I just scrolled through all of the comments looking for examples. Seeing none, I am disappointed. Moving along now.
there is this guy named Jason who created this wonderful, amazing site devoted to all things buckeye, and he lets us use it for free. Free I tell you. This guy asked us to do him this one favor.
so, can we just respect Jason's wishes and do him this favor?
How about I think it's hilarious that people would risk there jobs over an internet site.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
I think you said that already. At this point it is a straw man since it seems you didn't read any of the replies.
Just so you understand the concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_safe_for_work
Congrats that you can search the web and huddle at the water cooler while working. Work is just exactly that, work. That other stuff is recess, I guess. I don't care that 11W doesn't require photos to be linked. While I'm at work, I work. It's your problem. Until the staff changes the policy, roll the dice. I'm really sorry you can't enjoy your favorite site at work. Did that last sentence help any?
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
You sound a lot like Bo Ryan in my head.
You sound like my ex-wife. Rambling about something thats only important to her, but demanding that it should be meaningful to everyone.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
It actually seems pretty sure it seems many people care about it and some staff...
You sound like someone who doesn't believe advocating for change. "Keep quite until someone changes heir mind!" <--- very effective and American...
I believe in "to each his own." I believe that my opinions have been proven to be more important to myself, than to anyone else. Just as yours are to you. I believe that you state your opinions as fact, and you are unswayed be legal precedent. I also believe that if something is conflicting with your work environment, then you do those things on your own time away from the office. We'll not get into what American means to each of us. In all honesty Steens, good luck with the agenda. It's good to have beliefs that your willing to stand up for. No sarcasm intended.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
I just don't agree with "to each is own" because a community effects each other. I'm not advocating making illegal something I don't agree with, just have places where the intent is one thing and we don't have to have a bunch of crap that effects a lot of people negatively.
The pictures at work are an issue, that is fact, in context their fuel for big problems which is why most workplaces state clearly to not have them there. They are also sexual in nature, sex sells, no matter if its just an ad or an "artistic" photo. We use the phrase "sex sells" to describe why the ads and pics exist, but stop short of calling them sexual? Why? Are we just kidding ourselves? Or do we just love being hypocritical?
Cajun, I'm close to 100% agreement with you here. The comment above is idiotic. Were you ever in the military Steensn?
Please explain further why we should stop speaking our minds and whether or not me being the military has anything to do with it.
"Advocating for Change". Now I get it. Geez, Steenz, why didn't you slip that line in one of your earlier posts. It would have saved me a lot of typing. No explanation necessary.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
I'm confused as to how it is anything different than that. I see no where anyone asking for this to be made illegal, rather a request to please stop for the communities sake (and keep the focus on why we are actually all here). Frankly, I feel like we are the ones asking to keep the convos on football at this point. I have no idea what you thought this was about...
When the staff see's a problem, they correct them. They put guidelines in place and we all follow them. If they see the need to implicate restrictions on posting pics, I have confidence that they will. Keep petitioning, Steenz. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. For you and the others, this is strictly about the objectification of women. Why not just say that? Instead of ranting about the legality and the NSFW issues. I get it, OK?
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
There are cut actualy tons of reasons I don't like it, there is only a few reasons I say something about it. If they were confined to a thread labelled NSFW, 11W Babe Thread, or even a link to a pic you wound hear a peep from me. In fact, I've never unprovoked commented on the issue, I simply down voted an when some asked I told them why. There are 50 reasons I don't like it, but if I had a choice to be on here and not see it or the perverted comments that follow I wouldn't have said a word.
Never told you to stop speaking your mind. You said it was The American way to stay quite until someone else makes a decision. I come from a family, and by marriage, exposed to an extended family that had 4 soldiers serve in WW2, 2 in Vietnam, 1 currently in active duty, and many others that have served at various times....... about as American as you can be. I don't believe these individuals keep/kept quite in their personal lives until someone makes a decision for them. I do believe that they honor following the rules. Have a purpose, know the purpose and do it free of distraction. While at work, they would consider, surfing the internet for personal stuff, while on the clock, to be Fucking off. I'm not trying to split hairs here.
Your side of the debate is hard to support, when you don't stay on topic and throw out wild ramblings aimed at those who don't agree with your view.
A poster above gave a link to a site that would filter any "unnecessary" media from 11W, so you could "safely" view the site from work. Seems that many supporters of media censorship should be happy that avenue was provided, until/if site policy changes. It appears that argument for argument sake, is taking place.
I've believe I have blown enough wind into this balloon. Live goes on, adapt and move forward. Go Bucks!
My mistake for forgetting the sarcastic font. I was commenting on the fact that I'm supposed to deal with it.
Sorry Cajun, I just noticed in an above post you said "how about". I was not mocking you so I edited my post to redact that phrase. I was trying to be dramatic in telling the tale of Jason who is asking this one favor. That is the problem with written word, especially when written by me.
In all seriousness, I can get over the work thing.
The real issue in my opinion is respecting Jason. If he asked me to never post again, I would be sad, but still happy that I am able to use his site for free. So I really just want to respect his wishes.
I'm done. Good night.
It's all good, Pope. I know this is a serious issue for you and I hope it works out for you. +1
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Great response. I think what truly offends people is that other people don't feel the same way they do. We're all different. Frankly I'm tired of other people forcing their moral code upon me. But this is a simple issue to fix, like you stated many times, I go to work to actually work. During lunch hour, I will pop in here to get informed on my Buckeyes. If someone puts a racy photo in a thread....oh well, I move on. I guess I should make a thread about being offended by the over played memes that pop up in every thread. Bottom line is there is no way to please everyone, but the good news is another thread, or dare I say another site is just a click away if you're so offended. I hope we can all be respectful of each other, but that can't ever happen totally because as we all know, someone will always find something to complain about. Whether that's here or anywhere else in the real world.
I only got passionate at all in this thread when people continued to argue with the premise of not directly embedding pictures as some infringement on freedom and then throwing a strawman out there rather than addressing why specifically it is so hard to link a picture or not directly embed it. It isn't really that big of a deal, hence why I never started a thread like this. I can appreciate that people like to post such pictures on the internet and laugh or joke around. I can't appreciate that they won't respect the fundamental internet concept of NSFW when asked to do so. It has nothing to do with offensiveness for me or the OP.
Actually there aren't really any quality sites left that aren't overrun with unnecessary NSFW material. This is our last ditch effort before this site turns into the same. I close to jumping ship, but I've tried lately to see how grown up people can be, turning this into a "stop forcing your morals down people's throats" is a good indication that people here don't understand base level respect from a grown up perspective. All that was asked to make it clear so we have a choice not to see it or other around us not to see it and we can enjoy the whole reason we all come here.
Please don't make this into something it isn't, it is a shame this isn't crystal clear by now...
That is the point, we shouldn't have to. We get free time during work and are allowed o spend it as we wish. Frankly, I worked 74 hours last week. If I want to take a break for 15 minutes my company encourages it. A sight dedicated to OSU football should be a safe place to go, that is the point. At the moment I am hoping it will go back to the way it was where we didn'tt have to worry about it. I it goes the way of 247 I will of course leave like I did last time. For now I am hoping for a little decency out of the 11w community. Think of it as a last ditch plea for people to grow up and act mature...
pick used to post a ton of gifs, but because many people complained about the load time on their computers I stopped so they could enjoy the actual point of being here, not gifs but OSU sports. I may not have the issue, I may not think its wrong, I in fact will be doing less of things I enjoy, but I'm willing to curve my posting habits if it helps the community enjoy the reason we are actually here. That is a mature way to handle the situation, not telling them to go out and get a better computer and faster Internet or thy can leave.
I'm sorry, I fail to see how you telling everyone that we must abide by your view of what's appropriate is any different that someone telling you to leave 11w. This is exactly my issue with your issue. How does your opinion become the one we must all abide by? You want people to respect your view yet you don't respect an opposing view. I got it.
"Those that shout TOLERANCE the loudest, seem to show the least of it".
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Wondering how the tolerance quote is applicable...
Frankly because I'm requesting, not telling, that they stop. Further, I am requesting, not telling, them to do it in a way that allows me to not view something that is off topic to where it is posted. The difference is that in return I am being told to "stop whining" "quit shoving my morals down other people's throats" "go somewhere else" etc. One corner is asking to keep it about OSU sports, why we are all here, and the other is trying to justify being able to offend the women posters and those at work with thing that have nothing to do with OSU sports. I see a stark difference here and it is very clear....
No opinion will ever be clearer than your own.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Or the fact it is stated very clearly in the OPs first post:
"I just would like to ask the staff your guys' stance on the "issue" and if there is any potential solution?"
Very clear request to find a way to resolve the issue, not whine about or tell others what to do. No one has stated anything other than its an issue (which then is challenged for some odd reason) and then asks for some way to resolve the issue. I have no idea why these points are glossed over and it seems we can only then get focused on whether our concern is really an issue. Even a staff member voiced his concern and it seems glossed over...
Then ask the staff and stop asking the community Steenz.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
That's no how 11W works. The staff would rather the culture of the community self regulate itself, hence the voting scheme. Jason even noted his reservation of deleting things that are not explicitly against the general guidelines. They are very clear they don't want to have 24/7 strict moderation based on hard and fast giant rule sets. I suspect they read this hoping there is some general agreement and we can all move on.
Maybe this is one hey need to add som guidelines, but to be frank, the rest of the Internet has set a standard on this that doesn't seem that hard to adopt. I'm so amazed at the reaction of the request, given most of the Internet has matured enough to handle it in a pretty fair manner...
You like to use words like pervert and mature, and you have no idea the type of people you are posting to.
I do like to use them because they are subjective words that IMO fit. We are going to agree to disagree on my usage of them.
sorry Steensn. You don't have the luxury of telling me when I agree or disagree with you. Your interpretation of subjective items seems to be the only interpretations you are willing to consider (I feel those adjectives are condescending and argumentative), thus doing so, you are behaving the exact same as the posters you have been labeling immature and perverted for not seeing material the same way you do.
Also The staff has spoken on the issue. Let's not argue on interpretations of their post, it's pretty cut and dry.
If you are worried about starting sparks or a Sexual harassment fire while at work..... do yourself a favor and don't play with the matches. I shouldn't be saddled with constraints, when behaving according to 11W policy, because either you, your co-workers or your boss can't handle things.
John, your missed the whole point of my post and clearly arent following my points. My fault (for not being clear) or yours(for not trying to get the point but just nitpick at random out of context things), you are focusing not what the point of my post are but rather individual words or phrases out of context. I'll leave it at that, lets move on.
you ought to try not telling me what I am doing. I'll leave it at that, when you quit painting my thoughts in an incorrect way. There is no fault to be found in this debate, therefore I have none( fault) in regards to this discussion. Saying I missed points, nitpick and am out of focus is incorrect. I have read this thread and I fully understand the points.
Who can be wrong in a matter of opinion? History suggests that the correct opinion is awarded to the group or individual that carries the biggest stick. 11W carries the stick, we speak with our votes and comments.
Just read all the comments and all I can say is WOW. Football season can't get here soon enough! I for one don't mind the photos at all and the fact that this is even a thread is ridiculous... People just want something to argue about apparently...
"Do not pray for an easy life. Rather, pray for the the strength to endure a difficult one" - Bruce Lee
I've got the flu and I'm full of cough syrup, so my judgment can't be sound. I'll take that as advice, Jeremy, and retire for the evening.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
WOW! Some of these posts qualify as manifesto's.
D. Anthony
I was thinking dissertation...
I removed all of the photos from this thread because I think this is a worthwhile conversation to have and they weren't adding much in the way of substance.
Here's what this is not about:
I think this just boils down to a few people asking to keep the conversation elevated and on-topic and to me, that's fair. We take a pretty laissez-faire approach to comments and what you can say on here and we'd like to keep it that way, but at the same time, I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to have a place that favors intelligent Ohio State athletics talk over some of the other things that are off-topic and detract from the conversation.
Thanks for clarification, Jason. THE END.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Thanks Jason. I know that I have commented on here and I really made every effort to keep it civil and in line with the commenting policy (as I always do). As I look at the rest of the comments it appears that everyone else has done so too. And, that is saying something considering two recent Buckshots concerning an upcoming commencement address and the Hockey team's video generated more texted NSFW and violations of the commenting policy than everything else on here for the last year!!!
It is amazing that this thread has soooo many comments. I started to wonder if this is really a big problem on here. So, I went back and looked at a large number of recent posts - from every section on 11W. Over 100 main articles posted, over 50 Buckshots, over 50 Blogs, and over 50 Forum topics. This had to encompass more that 50,000 comments. The result? 6 pictures in which women were showing more bare skin than their faces or arms, including: one cheerleader; one pick of Kathy Ireland's place kicking role; a dress that showed some cleavage; several coeds displaying f*** M*c*i*g*n on their butts; Katy Perry in an Elmo shirt; and some singer at a public performance with a really ugly look on her face.
In short, although this discussion is long and spirited, it really is "much ado about nothing" or at the least about very little. I also learned that although I do spend what I would consider a lot of time reading 11W there is a lot of content that I never get to (in the way of comments made). I am really surprised that a few people on here managed to single out inappropriate comments/pics while surfing in the few minutes they can while on the job.
You addressed the suggestions that 11W add a NSFW tag, and I totally understand and agree with your stance. Other suggestions are that you create a NSFW section. What I learned from scanning the site is that a user can pretty much do that all on their own by avoiding the Forum section while at work. There are hardly any NSFW graphics in Buckshots, Blog Posts, or main articles on here. And there is plenty of content away from the forum to occupy the limited minutes they have to view the site while at work. Don't know if that helps, but that is my observation.
Keep up the good work Jason, and Go Bucks!!!
Interesting take to think it is a irrelevant amount because there seem to be more than a few men, a least one women (greatly outnumbered), and Jason all seem to think it was going to far. Hard to say much to do about nothing if enough people and staff are saying enough is enough. It doesn't always take a lot to cross the line. I would think one picture of a dead body on here was one too many. Numbers wise that would be one out of 50,000 post and shouldn't be an issue right? Clearly that is not a good reasoning.
its an issue when enough people make it one. This is clearly now an issue and staff has addressed it and felt it was necessary too.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Steensn, Thanks for replying to one of my posts. I truly value your opinion. And, FWIW, I would really not want you to get in trouble at work for accidentally viewing anything you find NSFW or objectionable. Along those lines I would like to point you to my first post on here where I mention the snaphow.com website. They offer a program that will prevent any graphics from appearing on your browser, and you can turn it on or off with the click of your mouse. You may want to suggest it to your manager as a way to make sure nobody at work views anything that could be interpreted as NSFW on their work PC's.
And, I did not say this discussion was irrelevant. I simply quoted Shakespeare to imply that this thread is entirely too involved for it's relevance. Jason addressed this and really summed up everything in his one post above. I concur with his opinion and agree that he has valid points. I really don't believe 11W needs to do anything else to address this. I am sure some people would like to see more drastic measures implemented, maybe you are one of them. maybe not. But, that is the beauty of a community like this. We all have our own opinions and can go forward and cheer on our favorite team while high-fiving someone seated next to us who may otherwise disagree with everything we stand for. Sports is like that. Brings together very strange bedfellows - oops, there I go with that Shakespeare stuff again.
Have a great day!!!!