Mods gone wild

[alster]

The point here is this image is close to the one that was pulled. The one that was pulled probably was not at a party entrance. Seems like a bad mod decision to me, made by not knowing about the subject matter.

It wasnt a bad decision. It was the only decision. Had it been an offensive and bigoted picture, inaction would have been the mistake. Not knowing the hindu faith, or anything about the goddess, she had no choice. People were complaining that it was bigoted, she removed it to evaluate it, which is exactly her job. Had she waited, others would have complained the other side of it.

Despite your obvious insight that "offensive" is inherently subjective, you keep wirting stuff like "(h)ad it been an offensive and bigoted picture" implying that it's an objective term.

"Offense" is one thing, forget that. No one can expect not to be offended.

"Bigoted" would have to be construed in light of the general CC policy which hopefully (i) is race and religiously neutral in this respect and (ii) sets a pretty high bar for bigoted, i.e. something that most people would think is pretty nasty and not something based on a few "victims" feelings (if not, well, unless closing down the forums the mods would have a lot of work ahead of them, and just as the old rating system and the work that entailed had begun to fade away).

Think this is the key:

Im not missing any point at all. If a Hinduist is offended by a picture, than they are offended.

Just becasue one or a few people scream "offense" doesn't necessarily make a decision to act on that scream correct. People wait patiently for action on C&A reports, they can wait patiently in these situations as well (e.g. if being horrified by a picture, well, one can just avoid that particular thread for a while).

[AAFitz]

The point here is this image is close to the one that was pulled. The one that was pulled probably was not at a party entrance. Seems like a bad mod decision to me, made by not knowing about the subject matter.

It wasnt a bad decision. It was the only decision. Had it been an offensive and bigoted picture, inaction would have been the mistake. Not knowing the hindu faith, or anything about the goddess, she had no choice. People were complaining that it was bigoted, she removed it to evaluate it, which is exactly her job. Had she waited, others would have complained the other side of it.

Do you really believe a religious image offended people? If so they have no skin. I bet these "so called" offended people have no clue what the image means, and therefore reported it out of not knowing any better. I bet you will not find anybody who is truly offended by an image of her. People can claim whatever, but does not mean they mean it.

Thats all really irrelevant to her decision. If she gets pms saying they are offended, she has no reason to question it at first, so she deletes it. After examining it, she put it back... that doesnt make the original decision a bad one. It was her only decision.

I never heard of the goddess before. If someone told me they were offended, Id believe them. Id have no reason not to. And again, anyone dressing up as a deity is bound to offend some people in that faith. The mere act will be offensive to many.

I bet she would litterally get attacked if she tried to walk down the streets in india, and would certainly be kicked out of any religious building, the same way a person here, dressing up as Jesus and donning a cross walking down the street would offend many.

[AAFitz]

The point here is this image is close to the one that was pulled. The one that was pulled probably was not at a party entrance. Seems like a bad mod decision to me, made by not knowing about the subject matter.

It wasnt a bad decision. It was the only decision. Had it been an offensive and bigoted picture, inaction would have been the mistake. Not knowing the hindu faith, or anything about the goddess, she had no choice. People were complaining that it was bigoted, she removed it to evaluate it, which is exactly her job. Had she waited, others would have complained the other side of it.

Despite your obvious insight that "offensive" is inherently subjective, you keep wirting stuff like "(h)ad it been an offensive and bigoted picture" implying that it's an objective term.

"Offense" is one thing, forget that. No one can expect not to be offended.

"Bigoted" would have to be construed in light of the general CC policy which hopefully (i) is race and religiously neutral in this respect and (ii) sets a pretty high bar for bigoted, i.e. something that most people would think is pretty nasty and not something based on a few "victims" feelings (if not, well, unless closing down the forums the mods would have a lot of work ahead of them, and just as the old rating system and the work that entailed had begun to fade away).

Think this is the key:

Im not missing any point at all. If a Hinduist is offended by a picture, than they are offended.

Just becasue one or a few people scream "offense" doesn't necessarily make a decision to act on that scream correct. People wait patiently for action on C&A reports, they can wait patiently in these situations as well (e.g. if being horrified by a picture, well, one can just avoid that particular thread for a while).

Except that in the case of bigotry, the rules call for immediate action, which makes her decision completely correct. Perhaps it was on the cautious side, but when in a situation like this, it is better to err on the side of caution, than wait, and run the risk of leaving a potentially bigoted picture, that offends an entire religion.

[Snorri1234]

Im not missing any point at all. If a Hinduist is offended by a picture, than they are offended. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

I'm saying that they can't be offended because there is nothing offensive about it. A hinduist literally can't get offended by it for the simple reason that it's not offensive to them. Christians don't get offended by seeing jesus on a cross and hinduists don't get offended by seeing Kali with a skirt of severed arms and a garland of human heads.

Again, its just ridiculous to speculate what someone can or cannot be offended by. Certainly, a poor representation of the cross, or other religious icon would be offensive to many. The fact that it technically meets your wiki definition is irrelevant.

I think it's safe to say that few hindus play on here, and that virtually none check the Hot+sexy thread.

Further, many probably are offended from seeing jesus hung from a cross. Certainly you wont see it in a Mosque, temple, or hindu...err...place of worship. You also wont find one in most schools, or federal buildings either, because some people do find it offensive.

Uhm those people aren't offended at the jesus but at the implication of it. (e.g. that the school is religious in nature) If they were actually offended by the jesus itself they would protest it at other places too. Anyone who is actually offended by the jesus itself is a bigot and should not be listened to.

Well, its nice to see you understand why everyone is offended, when, how and what thier reasons are.

Well ofcourse I know that some people are offended by pictures of Jesus because the blue, invisble gnomes tell them to, but otherwise I think most people object to stuff on logical chains of thought.

And seriously, you are giving clapper way too much credit. She still thinks it's an offensive image.

Again with the mind reading... impressive, though difficult to believe.

I don't need to read minds when people say stuff.

[AAFitz]

Im not missing any point at all. If a Hinduist is offended by a picture, than they are offended. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

I'm saying that they can't be offended because there is nothing offensive about it. A hinduist literally can't get offended by it for the simple reason that it's not offensive to them. Christians don't get offended by seeing jesus on a cross and hinduists don't get offended by seeing Kali with a skirt of severed arms and a garland of human heads.

Again, its just ridiculous to speculate what someone can or cannot be offended by. Certainly, a poor representation of the cross, or other religious icon would be offensive to many. The fact that it technically meets your wiki definition is irrelevant.

I think it's safe to say that few hindus play on here, and that virtually none check the Hot+sexy thread.

you really do have the pulse of the hindus down. You know what offends them, and now you know their post reading habits..

Further, many probably are offended from seeing jesus hung from a cross. Certainly you wont see it in a Mosque, temple, or hindu...err...place of worship. You also wont find one in most schools, or federal buildings either, because some people do find it offensive.

Uhm those people aren't offended at the jesus but at the implication of it. (e.g. that the school is religious in nature) If they were actually offended by the jesus itself they would protest it at other places too. Anyone who is actually offended by the jesus itself is a bigot and should not be listened to.

Well, its nice to see you understand why everyone is offended, when, how and what thier reasons are.

Well ofcourse I know that some people are offended by pictures of Jesus because the blue, invisble gnomes tell them to, but otherwise I think most people object to stuff on logical chains of thought.

Yeah...some guy dressing up as their Lord, essentially mocking his death would be pretty illogical to be offended by. Gnomes must be the reason.

And seriously, you are giving clapper way too much credit. She still thinks it's an offensive image.

Again with the mind reading... impressive, though difficult to believe.

I don't need to read minds when people say stuff.

Perhaps not, but you still seem to be doing it quite a bit

[owenshooter]

IN DEFENSE OF CLAPPER...

well, like many mods around here, clapper seems to lack the knowledge of the world at large and also seems to lack sufficient life experience to understand the image or who it was of. not a knock on her, just an observation. although i find it more than amusing that someone would not realize this or an image like it, is a very accurate depiction of the goddess in question, i believe clapper did the right thing. her lack of knowledge on the subject at hand, caused her to err on the side of caution, which is not a bad thing. however, if after having it clearly explained to her, clapper still believes the image is offensive, she may need to do a little research to form an informed opinion. so, although i find her actions knee-jerk and uninformed, i wholly agree with her erring on the side of caution if the decision was based on her not knowing what the image was.

HOWEVER, at the end of the day, perhaps it truly is wrong to have an image of someone elses god within the Hot and Sexy thread. maybe that was what clapper based her decision on. i am not sure, and i doubt clapper will come in here to defend herself. she seems to have enough people attempting to do so, albeit poorly. if her basis for the removal of the image was due to it being in the Hot and Sexy thread, she probably made the right call. imagine Mary, Mary Magdeline or Joseph Smith's image being placed within the hot and sexy thread (joseph smith would get that thread locked). if this is the case, than the question is not if the image is an accurate depiction and if clapper/any other mod knows it is an accurate depiction. the question is if it is tasteless to put someone's god within the hot and sexy thread. again, if this is the case, she did the right thing... and i applaud her...

i do not believe the new BIGOTRY GUIDELINES should have been sighted in this instance. it isn't a case of bigotry so much as it is a case of poor, tasteless and tacky judgement on the part of the individual that posted it... so, whatever reason clapper has, especially the ones i described above, it is sufficient for me, and she did her job well...-0

Click image to enlarge.

[Snorri1234]

you really do have the pulse of the hindus down. You know what offends them, and now you know their post reading habits..

Statistically it's highly unlikely that there are a bunch of hindus checking the NSFW thread daily to spot stuff they might get offended by.

I mean, it's ofcourse possible that there are several hindus who don't post even to just express their thoughts about some image that they clearly all reported as offensive, but I doubt it's likely.

Yeah...some guy dressing up as their Lord, essentially mocking his death would be pretty illogical to be offended by. Gnomes must be the reason.

What's the mockery? Not in the Jesus-case but in the Kali-one.

And what does it have to do with people getting offended at depictions of Jesus? Because that's what we were talking about. Not guys dressing up as jesus and shit, but the common depiction of jesus on a cross that you see almost everywhere.

Perhaps not, but you still seem to be doing it quite a bit

I have awesome mind-reading skills. I don't need them since I can just quote clapper's post asking Tripitaka if she really couldn't see the offensive nature of the picture, but it's nice to have them anyway.

[squishyg]

HOWEVER, at the end of the day, perhaps it truly is wrong to have an image of someone elses god within the Hot and Sexy thread. maybe that was what clapper based her decision on. i am not sure, and i doubt clapper will come in here to defend herself. she seems to have enough people attempting to do so, albeit poorly. if her basis for the removal of the image was due to it being in the Hot and Sexy thread, she probably made the right call. imagine Mary, Mary Magdeline or Joseph Smith's image being placed within the hot and sexy thread (joseph smith would get that thread locked). if this is the case, than the question is not if the image is an accurate depiction and if clapper/any other mod knows it is an accurate depiction. the question is if it is tasteless to put someone's god within the hot and sexy thread. again, if this is the case, she did the right thing... and i applaud her...

I think this really sums it up nicely. I didn't see the original image, but it does seem pretty tasteless to both post a picture of someone dressed up as a god and to put it on the hot and sexy category. If people complained, clapper made the right call in responding.

[AAFitz]

you really do have the pulse of the hindus down. You know what offends them, and now you know their post reading habits..

Statistically it's highly unlikely that there are a bunch of hindus checking the NSFW thread daily to spot stuff they might get offended by.

I mean, it's ofcourse possible that there are several hindus who don't post even to just express their thoughts about some image that they clearly all reported as offensive, but I doubt it's likely.

Yeah...some guy dressing up as their Lord, essentially mocking his death would be pretty illogical to be offended by. Gnomes must be the reason.

What's the mockery? Not in the Jesus-case but in the Kali-one.

The mockery, is the act of dressing up as the goddess. That in itself could offend some. you made the christian analogy, but compared it to a normal cross...not some guy dressed up as jesus which would probably offend many.

And what does it have to do with people getting offended at depictions of Jesus? Because that's what we were talking about. Not guys dressing up as jesus and shit, but the common depiction of jesus on a cross that you see almost everywhere.

This whole thread is about a hindu getting offended at someone dressed up as their God. You then compared it to christians. The proper analogy would be someone dressed up as Jesus. The common depiction is irrelevant as is the common depiction of the goddess. It was a picture of a chick dressed up as the goddess. Not a religious symbol.


Perhaps not, but you still seem to be doing it quite a bit

I have awesome mind-reading skills. I don't need them since I can just quote clapper's post asking Tripitaka if she really couldn't see the offensive nature of the picture, but it's nice to have them anyway.

You also claimed to know exactly what would and would not offend people of various religions, not just know clappers thoughts.
Not to mention your Statistical data that you just presented...

[Snorri1234]

i do not believe the new BIGOTRY GUIDELINES should have been sighted in this instance. it isn't a case of bigotry so much as it is a case of poor, tasteless and tacky judgement on the part of the individual that posted it...

Absolutely. But since poor taste has never been a reason to do anything about anything I fail to see how what happened could be justified after the fact. I don't blame clapper for acting nor do I blame her for not really knowing anything about this. But I think a friendly pm to devilduck saying his post was offensive to some people would've been far better.


I mean, she didn't take my pictures down in the 9/11 thread which made pimpdave seeth with rage. And those pics were in incredibly poor taste. Seriously, it was like making a dead-baby joke to someone who just had a miscarriage.

I like clapper, I really do, I just think she should be more open about her modding. I really don't mind her knee-jerk responses but sometimes she just tries to weasel out of it instead of just admitting she made a mistake.

[Snorri1234]

The mockery, is the act of dressing up as the goddess. That in itself could offend some. you made the christian analogy, but compared it to a normal cross...not some guy dressed up as jesus which would probably offend many.

Yeah that's swell. But the only objections I heard weren't about that. It's all well and good to say it might be offensive but noone has said that particular thing was offensive.

This whole thread is about a hindu getting offended at someone dressed up as their God. You then compared it to christians. The proper analogy would be someone dressed up as Jesus. The common depiction is irrelevant as is the common depiction of the goddess. It was a picture of a chick dressed up as the goddess. Not a religious symbol.

However, I never made that comparison. A.sub, the only one who came out with his objection, said it was her depiction and placement that was offensive, not the fact that it was a woman dressed up as a goddess. The offense registered was about the symbolism of it, not the fact it was a person.

You also claimed to know exactly what would and would not offend people of various religions, not just know clappers thoughts.
Not to mention your Statistical data that you just presented...

Actually, I really didn't. I said the portrayal itself was not offensive. Because the complaints from people were about the portrayal.

And that statistical date is easy. I tend to not believe there is a huge population of a certain origin silently watching all our threads untill they actually post to say they're there. I don't believe there is a huge muslim-population on CC either, mostly because jbrettlip hasn't received countless death-threats and because they aren't speaking up.

[AAFitz]

The mockery, is the act of dressing up as the goddess. That in itself could offend some. you made the christian analogy, but compared it to a normal cross...not some guy dressed up as jesus which would probably offend many.

Yeah that's swell. But the only objections I heard weren't about that. It's all well and good to say it might be offensive but noone has said that particular thing was offensive.

[/quote]

But you claimed no Hindu could be offended by it.

This whole thread is about a hindu getting offended at someone dressed up as their God. You then compared it to christians. The proper analogy would be someone dressed up as Jesus. The common depiction is irrelevant as is the common depiction of the goddess. It was a picture of a chick dressed up as the goddess. Not a religious symbol.

However, I never made that comparison. A.sub, the only one who came out with his objection, said it was her depiction and placement that was offensive, not the fact that it was a woman dressed up as a goddess. The offense registered was about the symbolism of it, not the fact it was a person.

Yes you did. You said that no Hindu could get offended by the post, because it was an accurate potrayal, and that it was the same as posting a picture of a cross somewhere.

You also claimed to know exactly what would and would not offend people of various religions, not just know clappers thoughts.
Not to mention your Statistical data that you just presented...

Actually, I really didn't. I said the portrayal itself was not offensive. Because the complaints from people were about the portrayal.

Actually you did, because you said Hindus could not be offended. If you were using the few that may have not been offended, that still does not mean many would not be.

And that statistical date is easy. I tend to not believe there is a huge population of a certain origin silently watching all our threads untill they actually post to say they're there. I don't believe there is a huge muslim-population on CC either, mostly because jbrettlip hasn't received countless death-threats and because they aren't speaking up.

Well, statistical means based on statistics, not based on some guess. You're simply guessing and I tend to agree with it, but combined with saying what offends hindus, guessing what posts they read, and what clapper was thinking, the statement that you were mind reading was appropriate.

[owenshooter]

I like clapper, I really do, I just think she should be more open about her modding. I really don't mind her knee-jerk responses but sometimes she just tries to weasel out of it instead of just admitting she made a mistake.

again, perhaps she did make a mistake, but she erred on the side of caution. and again, if it was because it is someone's god in the Hot and Sexy thread or whatever, she absolutely made the correct decision. most of you are basing your attack on the fact that she did not know if the image was an accurate depiction of the goddess, which it was. and that she had no idea WHAT the image was of, but reacted when told it was offensive by a few members. however, i think both of those points are truly irrelevant. if you want an explanation from her, you and i both know that is not going to happen...-0

[owenshooter]

HOWEVER, at the end of the day, perhaps it truly is wrong to have an image of someone elses god within the Hot and Sexy thread. maybe that was what clapper based her decision on. i am not sure, and i doubt clapper will come in here to defend herself. she seems to have enough people attempting to do so, albeit poorly. if her basis for the removal of the image was due to it being in the Hot and Sexy thread, she probably made the right call. imagine Mary, Mary Magdeline or Joseph Smith's image being placed within the hot and sexy thread (joseph smith would get that thread locked). if this is the case, than the question is not if the image is an accurate depiction and if clapper/any other mod knows it is an accurate depiction. the question is if it is tasteless to put someone's god within the hot and sexy thread. again, if this is the case, she did the right thing... and i applaud her...

I think this really sums it up nicely. I didn't see the original image, but it does seem pretty tasteless to both post a picture of someone dressed up as a god and to put it on the hot and sexy category. If people complained, clapper made the right call in responding.

yeah, that is a wonderful post... that dude nailed it.. wish you had quoted the rest of it too...-0

[alster]

HOWEVER, at the end of the day, perhaps it truly is wrong to have an image of someone elses god within the Hot and Sexy thread.

Well. I see you point. And it's a good one. After all, considering the potential, perhaps especially if bringing in heathen religions with more than one, but several, supreme beings (and many of them apparently not too shabby), it seems more appropriate with a new "Hot and Sexy thread - Religious edition" or something among those lines.

[Serbia]

Here is the original picture, for those of you too lazy to find it:


This picture must be even less offensive than the one of Heidi Klum that I posted.
I for one doubt that there were "many complaints". I believe there was one complaint, and it also seems to me, based on a.sub's own 'complaint' post, that he either over-hyped his offense to get it removed, (which he also admits to) or in fact needs to learn more about Kali, which may also be possible, based on his own original argument.

And come on, just because you get a complaint, that DOES NOT make something offensive. 10 complaints don't prove the offensiveness of a thing. Someone somewhere will be offended by something at any given point and time. And there is certainly no call whatsoever to label DevilDuck's posting of this picture as being bigoted. Poor taste in posting it in Hot and Sexy? Yes, a case can be made for that, no question. So merely cut it from that thread, and create a new thread, as was done. Oh and btw, did you people notice that clapper has now attempted to restore the picture? And yet, the "bigotry" tag remains.

Here's the thread = a Hindu goddess I would like to see clapper say that she made a mistake, remove the "bigotry" label from DD's post, and move on.

[owenshooter]

I would like to see clapper say that she made a mistake, remove the "bigotry" label from DD's post, and move on.

perhaps bigotry is the wrong tag, but placing someone's goddess within the HOT AND SEXY Thread is beyond wrong. clapper may have not known what she was doing or understood who the goddess was, but she erred on the side of caution. and guess what, i think she did the right thing. again, posting the image of someone's god within the HOT AND SEXY thread is poor judgement, in bad taste, irresponsible, juvenile, immature, and patently wrong. regardless of clappers reasons, she did the right thing, and the image should have been removed. fine, if you want her to remove the bigotry tag, so be it. but can she replace it with a "jackass" tag for the individual that posted the image of someone's goddess within that thread? the word tacky comes to mind...-0

[Snorri1234]

I like clapper, I really do, I just think she should be more open about her modding. I really don't mind her knee-jerk responses but sometimes she just tries to weasel out of it instead of just admitting she made a mistake.

again, perhaps she did make a mistake, but she erred on the side of caution. and again, if it was because it is someone's god in the Hot and Sexy thread or whatever, she absolutely made the correct decision. most of you are basing your attack on the fact that she did not know if the image was an accurate depiction of the goddess, which it was. and that she had no idea WHAT the image was of, but reacted when told it was offensive by a few members. however, i think both of those points are truly irrelevant. if you want an explanation from her, you and i both know that is not going to happen...-0

I understand that she erred on the side of caution. However, that doesn't mean that after she realises it's no big deal she should just pretend it never happened. She should just say: "sorry my bad, I didn't know something so I acted". I'm okay with her not acting, hell I might have made the same mistake regarding something else.

And ofcourse I know she won't ever explain herself. hell, it took several pages for her to apologise when she banned me for being "racist".

[clapper011]

actually,....snori..you know that i am the ONLY mod who has ever made an apology after making a mistake or error...... so saying I don't is just well...wrong! LOL and I don't believe i am in the wrong except for the bigotry tag... but that is in itself all a matter of opinion!

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

C'mon guys, give Clapper a break! What do you expect from someone who named herself after a STD.

[clapper011]

C'mon guys, give Clapper a break! What do you expect from someone who named herself after a STD.

ha ha you wish you knew the reasoning behind my name..I am doubting you could handle the reason..lmao!

[AndyDufresne]

I'm only stopping by for a short time this evening, but erring on the side of caution, when it comes to moderation, is always a good thing---especially in circumstances like this where the only real action was done was a removal of a possibly offensive image to increase a user or a group users enjoyment of Conquer Club.

Trying to make sure everyone can enjoy Conquer Club is surely a good thing.


--Andy

[nagerous]

actually,....snori..you know that i am the ONLY mod who has ever made an apology after making a mistake or error...... so saying I don't is just well...wrong! LOL and I don't believe i am in the wrong except for the bigotry tag... but that is in itself all a matter of opinion!

I think AK_Iceman apologised once for deleting spamalot, Twill also apologised to me via PM once for an unwarranted ban.

[clapper011]

yes maybe... but i meant publicly though but none the less....

[nagerous]

yes maybe... but i meant publicly though but none the less....

AK's was public:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19652&p=446890

Good times...

Anyway, I wasn't making a point that you should apologise as frankly I don't think you have anything to apologise for in this case
Was just correcting your point .