Gerry Kerr wrote:
I am pretty disgusted by the decision to censor the image based on complaints.
I do agree here too, but what happens on most forums is the moderator(s) don\'t have time allow/deny every image on a singular basis. They have to rely on the users to find the ones that (might) break the rules and then act on that.
This kind of thing works fine for other types of photography where few images will offend and few will seek out things that offend them. But for people photography that is sure to offend, it doesn\'t work.
Some people have a built-in tendency to seek out things they\'re not supposed to, they\'ll click on the NSFW or other \'warnings\' in links even if they know it\'s likely to offend them just because there\'s something alluring or curious about what\'s on the other end. And then they get offended, report the image, and the admin either removes it by default or tries to make a judgement call, because whatever rules the site has aren\'t too clear when it comes to people photography.
All these things work against a people photography forum, for instance also the way that popular threads appear on the front page for anyone (even those who wouldn\'t normally visit the people photography forum) to click on. So the more popular a post, the greater chance (if its content is even slightly objectionable) it will be removed.
So really, I would say that people photographers who want to push the limits, or those who want to \'see it all\', including the dark side photos, need to stick to places where the rules are well-defined and the moderators follow these rules to letter rather than relying on complaints to define that line.
Not to say a good portion of people photographers can\'t be perfectly happy on a forum like this, but honestly if the site is chasing off good people photographers, then maybe everyone would be better served with a site that caters to people photographers versus trying to appeal to all.
Nov 21, 2012 at 09:46 AM
Previous versions of Access's message #11133833 « Bye Bye »
