Post a pic

[Dan Gould]

I vote for more puppies, few to zero politicians, well constructed photos or not.

9 minutes ago, jlhoots said:

It's fine to enforce the rules if we know what they are.

I once posted a photograph by a "fine arts" photographer (whatever that may be) taken during a Dakota Access Pipe Line demonstration (a bad word I presume). It's a powerful image. I'll try to go back & see if it has been deleted.

 

I suppose Picasso's Guernica would be banned here or is it just "current" politics.

BTW my DAPL photo is still there. Maybe the designation DAPL didn't register!!

Or maybe the mods aren't very aggressive about these things.  They rely on the report post function and yes, I've used it myself for egregious posts here. They do the best they can; I think anyone would recognize Trump assaulting the lady with the scales is straight up politics and does not belong under the existing rules.

[BillF]

2 hours ago, Dan Gould said:

I don't know what the message is of Rosenstein, or of Trump peering thru blinds. "Pecker leaking" is obviously scatological over political, IMHO.  Jim's posting of the Time cover, which was a constructed photo and had a clear political message, should not have been allowed.

With all due respect and affection, the Brits who post in this thread seem to have an ongoing problem following the no politics rule.

Just put it down to the special relationship.

[JSngry]

If I couldn't tell the difference between "current events" and "politics", I think I'd step back from reality just a little bit more, to make sure I was all the way out.

Political cartoons, otoh, geez guys, it's in the name, ok? Does the special relationship extend to not being able to comprehend your own language?

[JSngry]

 

 

 

[Brad]

I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said that the US and Great Britain are two peoples divided by a common language. 

[JSngry]

[paul secor]

6 hours ago, jlhoots said:

What's the definition?

You left some of Sngry's up. They don't bother me, but again what's the definition??

 

5 hours ago, Brad said:

 

I agree completely with the rule but what applies to one should apply to all. 

 

 

Perhaps the answer is that moderators stick together.

[Brad]

Just now, paul secor said:

 

Perhaps the answer is that moderators stick together.

[JSngry]

Yes, we've formed a cabal. After the midterms, you guys are all fucked.

[Chuck Nessa]

31 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Yes, we've formed a cabal. After the midterms, you guys are all fucked.

You mean only the knuckleheads, right?

[Larry Kart]

Below are the Organissimo forum rules in their initial form. Where the latest version of the rules are, I don't know; probably Jim S. has the answer.

In any case, the relevant rule here is #5, but because some years back the degree of name-calling, the number of flame wars, etc.  on the Politics/Religion Forum increased to the point where, in the view of Jim (the view that counts) and in the view of the moderators too, such behavior had to stop  -- in the name of general civility and because some board members who used to talk to each other in a friendly and useful-to-others manner about the music were now pretty much just screaming at each other about politics or religion. Neither general warnings nor warnings to specific posters were doing the job (as, intermittently, they aren't doing the job now) so Jim decided to end the Politics/Religion Forum altogether. Thus, rule #5 is now: WE DO NOT ALLOW POSTS AND THREADS WITH POLITICAL AND/OR RELIGIOUS CONTENT.

As for complaints that so-and-sos political post  is still up there while your political post has been deleted, the moderators, as I've said before, are not in the business of sweeping up every piece of elephant dung after the circus parade. We dispose of what should be disposed of when we see it. In fact, if you've posted something that violates rule #5 and your post hasn't been deleted, why don't you go back and delete it yourself?

THE RULES

As with any society, members of the Organissimo Forums must abide by a set of rules. By reading and posting on these forums you agree in principle to the following rules:

 

1) The Organissimo Forums support the notion of free speech, although the definition of "free" is defined by the owners and operators of this board. We reserve the right to edit, delete, or otherwise moderate any post we deem inappropriate at any time for any reason.

 

If you feel a particular post is worthy of a moderator's intervention, please report the post using the "! report" button to the bottom right of the post. The report button looks like this:

 

 

2) Anything judged to be a direct personal threat towards another member of this board will be deleted and the offender may face banning and/or even prosecution, depending on the severity of the post. The definition of what constitutes a personal "threat" is determined by our moderators.

 

3) We do not tolerate offensive material. This includes material in all threads, posts, links, signatures, attachments, and avatars. The definition of "offensive" is determined by our moderators.

 

4) Flame wars will not be tolerated! We rarely delete threads, but we often close them and no new posts can be added. If a thread degrades to the point that we deem it necessary, we will close it or delete it.

 

 

5) We do not allow posts and threads with political and/or religious content outside the Politics/Religion Forum.

 

6) We do not encourage multiple memberships or aliases. We prefer one account per person. Anyone found to have multiple accounts will be contacted and asked to choose one of their aliases, at which time the other account(s) will be deleted.

 

7) We do not allow sharing, trading, or linking copyrighted material that is being offered illegally, including bootlegs.

 

8) We do not allow commenting on the price of wares in the "Offering/Looking for" forum. If you feel a post is extortionate or otherwise problematic, please report the post to the moderators. We also prefer that transactions be handled via the PM system.

 

9) When posting articles from other websites, do not quote the entire article. Please post a small snippet, then include a hyperlink to the full article. See as an example.

 

10) Please remember, this site is offered free of charge and is run by volunteers. We ask that you conduct yourself as you would if you were a guest in someone's home. Please treat your fellow members with respect.

 

 

If you would like to discuss these rules and/or a possible violation of them, please do not hesitate to contact us at forum@organissimo.org

 

P.S. As for "What's the definition (of political)"--  you're going to have use common sense. If you think your post might be political, then don't post it. Or just take it to the Internet, where one can post it with no problem.

[jlhoots]

I suppose it's like the old pornography saying - I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it.

[JSngry]

7 hours ago, Dan Gould said:

I don't know what the message is of Rosenstein, or of Trump peering thru blinds....Jim's posting of the Time cover, which was a constructed photo and had a clear political message, should not have been allowed.

I don't see what the "political message" is, really, I don't. Constructed image or not, it's a perfect construction, with a caption that pulls it all together. I know there's people. obviously, who don't think that any of the policy that created that situation is a negative thing. Why would a person who thought that way be offended by that image? I have to think that how an individual reacts to that would be based in large part upon what they bring to it. There's no comment or message about that. If there was, then it would definitely be political.

As for the "messages" of Rosenstein and/or Trump peering through the window - there aren't any. They are just pictures, good, strong pictures of people involved in current events, but other than that, what you see in them is going to be what you bring to them, and I am not commenting on that. I'm just posting the pictures because I like good graphics, good design. Hell, I grew up reading Life & Look, magazines where the pictures were pretty much were the magazine. I like a good picture of a current event, always have, always will.

Provoking a reaction is a good thing, but it's not up to me what that reaction is, nor is it my intent to tell you what I think it should be. That's entirely between you and yourself. Me, and I can't stress this enough, I just like a good picture, period.

[Larry Kart]

59 minutes ago, jlhoots said:

I suppose it's like the old pornography saying - I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it.

Again -- if you don't know yourself, don't post it.

[JSngry]

[paul secor]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 11:31 AM, JSngry said:

 

31 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

Again -- if you don't know yourself, don't post it.

Okay - why was the above post allowed and others were deleted? Because Jim didn't know it was political? I don't post political stuff, but all of this seems pretty bogus to me. If a moderator is going to enforce rules, there should be equal treatment for all.

Edited October 9, 2018 by paul secor

[jlhoots]

Edited October 9, 2018 by jlhoots
Go Brewers. Hope that's O.K.!!

[Larry Kart]

9 minutes ago, jlhoots said:

Well, I like the Cubs, so . . .

[Brad]

54 minutes ago, paul secor said:

 

Okay - why was the above post allowed and others were deleted? Because Jim didn't know it was political? I don't post political stuff, but all of this seems pretty bogus to me. If a moderator is going to enforce rules, there should be equal treatment for all.

It seems we have one rule for mods, another for the rest of us.  

[Larry Kart]

17 minutes ago, Brad said:

It seems we have one rule for mods, another for the rest of us.  

If you want to try all these cases in Federal Court, go right ahead, while we talk about ...  jazz, maybe?

As for Jim's posting of that Time cover, I would guess that for him it fell into the striking image bag. As for Jlhoots' "Why was [that] post allowed and others were deleted?" --  you seem to be assuming that the moderators regularly cruise these threads in search of posts that violate forum rules and need to be deleted. In fact, while the moderators delete the occasional rule-breaking post that we happen to see in passing (as  in, on our way to something else) the vast majority of the posts we delete we have been made aware  of by -- and only by --  complaints from forum members.

[Brad]

That’s why we’re here but we wouldn’t be having this conversation if the rules were properly enforced since this is supposed to be a political free forum.   

[paul secor]

11 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

If you want to try all these cases in Federal Court, go right ahead, while we talk about ...  jazz, maybe?

Okay, if you want to ignore the issue that you brought up. You're the boss.

 

[ghost of miles]

28 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

If you want to try all these cases in Federal Court, go right ahead, while we talk about ...  jazz, maybe?

As for Jim's posting of that Time cover, I would guess that for him it fell into the striking image bag. As for Jlhoots' "Why was [that] post allowed and others were deleted?" --  you seem to be assuming that the moderators regularly cruise these threads in search of posts that violate forum rules and need to be deleted. In fact, while the moderators delete the occasional rule-breaking post that we happen to see in passing (as  in, on our way to something else) the vast majority of the posts we delete we have been made aware  of by -- and only by --  complaints from forum members.

The Time cover is a great one, but it is political by a hundred miles--not a hard call at all to make IMO.  And I say this as a flaming left-winger very sympathetic to the point it's making, but in terms of objectivity, rules, and fairness, it shoulda been bounced, ump.  

[Larry Kart]

24 minutes ago, paul secor said:

Okay, if you want to ignore the issue that you brought up. You're the boss.

 

How did I bring the "issue" up? Is it because I explained that the politics and religion forum was dropped by Jim A. because the acrimony that had been prevailing there was in his view interfering with the reason this forum exists in the first and last place, and that forum rule #5 is what it has been for a good while now.

In any case, it seems to me that this "conversation" revolves around only two things: 1) The request for an absolute definition of what a political post is; 2) Why have some of  Jim S' allegedly political posts not been deleted?

As for 1): Go ask a philosopher; it's way above  both my competence and pay grade.  Or, bearing in mind rule #5 -- if you yourself have any doubts, don't post it.

As for 2): Ask Jim for his rationale, though I think he's already given it (the "striking image" thing).  Further, I find Jim to be a wry witty guy and assume that his motivations are of that sort, not acts of political advocacy.  As for myself, I don't recall posting anything political here after the Politics and Religion Forum went dark.

[jlhoots]

I didn't say why was that post allowed. Someone else did FWIW.