Question Why So Restrictive?

[Doctor Manhattan]

You wrote (and I will hide this behind a spoiler because of the content) Pumps semen into womb with lots of sperm.

Do you seriously believe that this content is SFW or in any way acceptable for the front page? I do not, nor do I think anyone does. Also, the message upon deletion that the officer left for you clearly explains another reason that content was deleted, which you said you've read multiple times. Is that unclear in some fashion? To me, I fail to see any use of "staff's discretion" that came into play here unless you want to try and argue that what you wrote was SFW - which it definitely was not.

You are free to behave how you wish and I will note that despite this being mostly a complaint on your part, there has not been any further blowback or closure of this thread, so you've been able to state your peace. However, it appears that the vast majority of respondents in this thread at least are quite clear on the issue and have zero problems with it.

Either way, whatever you decide, best of luck going forward.[/ispoiler]

 

[tsukasa]

You wrote (and I will hide this behind a spoiler because of the content) Pumps semen into womb with lots of sperm.

Do you seriously believe that this content is SFW or in any way acceptable for the front page? I do not, nor do I think anyone does. Also, the message upon deletion that the officer left for you clearly explains another reason that content was deleted, which you said you've read multiple times. Is that unclear in some fashion? To me, I fail to see any use of "staff's discretion" that came into play here unless you want to try and argue that what you wrote was SFW - which it definitely was not.

You are free to behave how you wish and I will note that despite this being mostly a complaint on your part, there has not been any further blowback or closure of this thread, so you've been able to state your peace. However, it appears that the vast majority of respondents in this thread at least are quite clear on the issue and have zero problems with it.

Either way, whatever you decide, best of luck going forward.[/ispoiler]

I'm not repeating myself again. I now know why it was removed. The issue is something which became very apparent to me during this incident, which is that staff have absolute power over all users and users have no defense. Rule 2 includes an abritrary allowance of "discretion", meaning that's all staff have to say if they want content removed or a user banned. This can be abused in countless ways. I've experienced this many times in the past. The reason I'm here is a user on this site who I won't name was actually a staff member of a Discord server with such arbitrary rules and agreed that they disagreed, so linked me here. Shame to see the same cancer infect this site.

This is unrelated to the NFSW content found in my post.

 

[Sync]

It's not a rant,

...and yet this is exactly what you've done.

What you should have done is approached an Office or Admin in a DM, rather than venting in public like this.

 

[Saber]

I'm not repeating myself again. I now know why it was removed. The issue is something which became very apparent to me during this incident, which is that staff have absolute power over all users and users have no defense. Rule 2 includes an abritrary allowance of "discretion", meaning that's all staff have to say if they want content removed or a user banned. This can be abused in countless ways. I've experienced this many times in the past. The reason I'm here is a user on this site who I won't name was actually a staff member of a Discord server with such arbitrary rules and agreed that they disagreed, so linked me here. Shame to see the same cancer infect this site.

This is unrelated to the NFSW content found in my post.

I'm surprised you didn't address my reply, but as stated. I gave you the clear reasons as to why your post was removed and the potential rule violation that you could potentially bring upon yourself. You had no disciplinary action taken against you, just a warning message. If you aren't understanding, which seems to be the consensus because you keep glossing over the actual reason which was given, then there is nothing else to discuss. Good luck in the future and hopefully you find somewhere that is less "restrictive".

 

[tsukasa]

...and yet this is exactly what you've done.

What you should have done is approached an Office or Admin in a DM, rather than venting in public like this.

I believe in public exposure of such issues, so other people can see and contribute. Not into secretive censorship and the like.

 

[Maki]

I believe in public exposure of such issues, so other people can see and contribute. Not into secretive censorship and the like.

OK, since you're inviting public scrutiny, I'll add my two cents.

You're in the wrong, take the L and go home.

The rules are fairly clear, there's no mystery why your post was removed and I see no genuine way that you can conceive of the rule as confusing, or the ruling as unfair. It genuinely reads to me like you're being dysingenous. And this post is doing nothing but promote drama. Honestly, I think staff is being more than gracious in not removing or sealing this thread.

 

[Doctor Manhattan]

You are deflecting my question by electing to not answer it. Also, no, staff do not have absolute power, far from it - we are governed by the rules which are clearly laid out and as you said, you know why it was removed. So then what is the issue? If there is a defense then absolutely we have and will hear it in previous cases and this one. Do you think if I went around and deleted every post that I personally found objectionable based solely on my discretion and perceived absolute power? Of course not. I'd not be a moderator much longer, that's for sure.

You've experienced abuse of power many times in the past - do you have an example? I do not see any involved in your history with regards to that, so please enlighten us.

The example you've provided has demonstrated that instead of that Discord server they chose this place to call a home and therefore that was advantageous to both of you, no doubt.
You may call this Rule a "cancer" but again, you've provided no evidence of any such issue where staff discretion resulted in an abuse of power.

Q.E.D., you created a post that was absolutely NSFW and had it deleted for a specific reason which you are aware of and there is no ill intent from a staff member involved in either of those two instances.

 

[tsukasa]

I'm surprised you didn't address my reply, but as stated. I gave you the clear reasons as to why your post was removed and the potential rule violation that you could potentially bring upon yourself. You had no disciplinary action taken against you, just a warning message. If you aren't understanding, which seems to be the consensus because you keep glossing over the actual reason which was given, then there is nothing else to discuss. Good luck in the future and hopefully you find somewhere that is less "restrictive".

The way rule 2 is written, staff literally have no other reason to give other than "it was at our discretion". This is completely on the site and staff to address, not me. Staff can just respond with any reason and state it's at their "discretion", making every other rule useless. Anything posted can be removed for any reason, with staff able to cover it up as "discretion". There is no foundation to base trust or certainty of rule-breaking upon. This is a dangerous game.

 

[Doctor Manhattan]

Staff did not, however, delete your post due to their "discretion". They removed it because it was clearly NSFW and we do not allow roleplay to occur in profile posts. Hence there is zero discretion involved in terminating your post. What then is the issue? A possible perceived mythical ability to abuse power? Alright then.

 

[tsukasa]

Staff did not, however, delete your post due to their "discretion". They removed it because it was clearly NSFW and we do not allow roleplay to occur in profile posts. Hence there is zero discretion involved in terminating your post. What then is the issue? A possible perceived mythical ability to abuse power? Alright then.

I'll say it for the fourth time, this is no longer about the reason my post was removed, but an overarching rule of the site which grants absolute, unrestricted authority to staff, based on "discretion". No facts required, just an opinion they don't like.

 

[Sync]

I believe in public exposure of such issues,

What issues?

Issues like staff who actually give a shit about the site and the wider userbase, who enforce their own rules equally? Dr.M re-posted your comment above, and whether it's part of an RP or not, it's definitely NSFW and, when in a public space, warranted removal.

The way rule 2 is written, staff literally have no other reason to give other than "it was at our discretion". This is completely on the site and staff to address, not me. Staff can just respond with any reason and state it's at their "discretion", making every other rule useless. Anything posted can be removed for any reason, with staff able to cover it up as "discretion". There is no foundation to base trust or certainty of rule-breaking upon. This is a dangerous game.

"At their discretion". Yes, it's at the discretion of the staff. Which means the staff - collectively - decide whether or not a post violates a rule.

YOU don't get to decide it. The STAFF do. YOU have the discretion to decide whether or not to post a NSFW comment in a public space. The staff then have the discretionary power to decide whether it warrants removal.

 

[Saber]

The way rule 2 is written, staff literally have no other reason to give other than "it was at our discretion". This is completely on the site and staff to address, not me. Staff can just respond with any reason and state it's at their "discretion", making every other rule useless. Anything posted can be removed for any reason, with staff able to cover it up as "discretion". There is no foundation to base trust or certainty of rule-breaking upon. This is a dangerous game.

As mentioned before, your post was reported by your peers, not staff. I clearly stated the reasoning, and you are, again, choosing to deflect and not address it. If you would like extreme clarity and transparency, you could post what you had and let your peers decide again whether it's appropriate.

Again, you avoided disciplinary action and were given a warning. At best you literally got a tap on the wrist and you're making it seem like staff tried to censor you completely.

 

[Revelations]

Let's read rule 2 in full.

2. If you see a rule being broken, please report it for staff review (more information on reporting can be found here) or contact a member of staff. If you have an issue with another member, consider using the site's 'ignore' function. Along with this, respect staff and their time. Trolling (i.e. acting in a purposefully incendiary way) in general is not permitted, but trolling or attacking staff for doing their jobs is additionally unacceptable. Judgment of images and written material is at staff's discretion; if staff decides that something is breaking the rules, it is breaking the rules. Appeals may be made through the contact page, but decisions are final. Members must be able to understand and communicate in English with staff.

Alright. Seems simple enough. In a loose sense, rule 2 states that judgement of images, written material, etc, etc, is at Staff's discretion. To keep it succinct, rule 2 means that Staff has the right to remove something rule breaking, and if you feel what you were doing is, or isn't, rule breaking, you are also free to bring up the question as to why it was removed/the reasoning behind the removal.

Staff, and other members have pointed out that your post broke a few rules. We did not remove it because we felt offended by or or 'at our discretion'. Rules were broken - rather simple, and easy to read rules at that. These are not complicated lawyer 'gotcha' rules. These are simple "Don't post NSFW stuff in inappropriate places' and such. These are also rules you agreed to when you joined the site.

Over the 13 months you've been part of the site, this is your first warning. Not anything that involves restricting your account such as removing profile profile privileges. You were basically given a poke on the cheek about pumping cum into someone's womb. If the rules are so overbearing/draconian/crept on over your 13 months, why is this the first rule violation we've enacted on you?

I'm not going to toot the staff's horn and say we're fair and wise staff members. I will leave either praise or criticism to the users at large, as is appropriate. However, I see no imminent threat of rules creeping that you're decrying. You basically got nudged and it's 1984 in your mind. You will find nowhere that will welcome you with this mindset.

 

[Maki]

I'll say it for the fourth time, this is no longer about the reason my post was removed, but an overarching rule of the site which grants absolute, unrestricted authority to staff, based on "discretion". No facts required, just an opinion they don't like.

The fact that this thread even still is up is proof enough that we're in no such danger of such tyrannical rules. Honestly, were it up to me, this thread would be completely removed from the website and you'd be suspended (to be clear, I'm not suggesting this should happen, only that I'm surprised it hasn't), I'm sure there's no shortage of mods with the same mindset, but they all have agreed to engage with you honestly and keep this discussion on instead. That shows they're doing a dang good job keeping each other and those impulses you're worried about in check.

No, this is no longer about why this post was removed, to me now it's about why this thread remains up at all in the first place. And it reads to me it's primarily because you refuse to let it go.

 

[Kosmik_Khaos]

Dude. You are a trip. You are so in the wrong and being so amazingly petulant about it. This has been very entertaining to read. You broke the rules. You didn't even get punished for it. You got a "Hey homie, that's not allowed, don't do it again." Now that your peers are speaking up on it you are trying to change your tune and spew some vitriol over the staff and strict rule breaking. Our staff isn't perfect but they are some of the fairest around. They are letting you make a complete ass out of yourself in public while you libel them. Any other site I have been part of would have shut this circus down and sent you a message explaining why you were WRONG, are WRONG, and will still be WRONG when you ignore everyone and continue to cry about things that are not true.

Show some maturity and grace. You made a mistake, it was corrected. This all could have been avoided with a simple "Heard, broke a rule won't do it again." And it would have stopped there.

 

[BennyQ]

I just want to say, in regards the tone regarding so-called Staff authoritarianism, that as someone who has been a member of this forum for 9 years that I've seen no example or demonstration of such behavior from the moderating personnel, whether the current ones or those who came before. I too have seen the profile post in question and did regard it as rather lacking in class. You keep arguing about staffs opinion being the deciding factor here. Well, isn't that what all enforcement comes down to? Interpretation of rules and whether they've been broken? You broke them, bud. And you only got a warning. I feel like true authoritarians would have banned you outright. What you claim and what happened don't seem to add up. And rules are important. It pains my inner child to say that but without them, we'd have what? Fucking anarchy. That would do nobody any good.

But this entire accusation of slipping into immense, oppressive Staff oversight is laughable to me. There have been many who claimed such over the years. The proof has been nonexistent. If they are, brick laying as you say, some suppressive prison cell around the average writer, then they are rather terrible workers. If you don't like it, move yourself to another forum. It's all good. That is the joy of a free society that you can choose alternatives. Best of luck to you and your internet martyrdom.

 

[tsukasa]

Let's read rule 2 in full.



Alright. Seems simple enough. In a loose sense, rule 2 states that judgement of images, written material, etc, etc, is at Staff's discretion. To keep it succinct, rule 2 means that Staff has the right to remove something rule breaking, and if you feel what you were doing is, or isn't, rule breaking, you are also free to bring up the question as to why it was removed/the reasoning behind the removal.

Tell me, what exactly is preventing you or any other member of staff from removing a post of mine because it contains an image of a dog breed they don't like, or because their friend personally doesn't like my RTs? From what I can see, nothing. You can't pin the reason to another rule, so you simply say "it was removed at our discretion", and I have absolutely no way of fighting back, because rule 2 states "discretion", not even requiring a reason or evidence for the reason to be given.

 

[Revelations]

Tell me, what exactly is preventing you or any other member of staff from removing a post of mine because it contains an image of a dog breed they don't like, or because their friend personally doesn't like my RTs? From what I can see, nothing. You can't pin the reason to another rule, so you simply say "it was removed at our discretion", and I have absolutely no way of fighting back, because rule 2 states "discretion", not even requiring a reason or evidence for the reason to be given.

Because we have fucking better things to do with our time than delete dogs on the internet, sorry. I know you're looking for an answer you can twist or turn but simply put the idea that we'd do anything like either is laughable. I've seen countless RT's that make me cringe or feel disgust but as long as they aren't breaking the rules, they are fine.

 

[tsukasa]

Because we have fucking better things to do with our time than delete dogs on the internet, sorry. I know you're looking for an answer you can twist or turn but simply put the idea that we'd do anything like either is laughable. I've seen countless RT's that make me cringe or feel disgust but as long as they aren't breaking the rules, they are fine.

That's not an answer to my question. It doesn't prove you can't do it, which is exactly my point. You either can, or you cannot. Anything me or anyone else posts could be removed for any reason outside of the site rules, covered as "our discretion". Why should anyone write 1000 word posts just for the entire thread to be deleted because a staff member doesn't like the image of the dog in there?

 

[ƒeral]

That's a pointless defense. What in life does not involve discretion?

BMR has clearly stated rules and staff who are available for questions. BMR rules have also been refined over and over again.

If you assume the worst of staff - i.e., assuming they absolutely will abuse power and exercise discretion in the worst way possible - then literally no system conceivable can stop that.

That's the greatest fallacy of all time, assuming the worst of everyone.

Accept your L and go home.

 

[tsukasa]

That's a pointless defense. What in life does not involve discretion?

BMR has clearly stated rules and staff who are available for questions. BMR rules have also been refined over and over again.

If you assume the worst of staff - i.e., assuming they absolutely will abuse power and exercise discretion in the worst way possible - then literally no system conceivable can stop that.

That's the greatest fallacy of all time, assuming the worst of everyone.

Accept your L and go home.

Yes, it can. It's called forcing staff to pin it to an actual hard-coded reason and providing evidence for their claim, not "our discretion".

 

[Revelations]

That's not an answer to my question. It doesn't prove you can't do it, which is exactly my point. You either can, or you cannot. Anything me or anyone else posts could be removed for any reason outside of the site rules, covered as "our discretion". Why should anyone write 1000 word posts just for the entire thread to be deleted because a staff member doesn't like the image of the dog in there?

I honestly and sincerely don't think your 'question' needs an answer, sorry. I think it would become rather blatant to the site and our userbase if we deleted inane shit constantly or RT's that are 'cringe' or pictures of dogs we don't like. If we do, the users would be right to leave.

 

[tsukasa]

I honestly and sincerely don't think your 'question' needs an answer, sorry. I think it would become rather blatant to the site and our userbase if we deleted inane shit constantly or RT's that are 'cringe' or pictures of dogs we don't like. If we do, the users would be right to leave.

There is no safeguarding against it. It could start tomorrow.

 

[ƒeral]

Yes, it can. It's called forcing staff to pin it to an actual hard-coded reason and providing evidence for their claim, not "our discretion".

they did. the reason is literally - if it's lewd. it's not for the front page.

A literal U.S. Supreme Court Justice dealt with the issue of hard core porn with "I know it when I see it," because stuff like this REQUIRE discretion.

You are asking BMR, an adult writing site, to adopt a scheme more restrictive than the US Supreme Court.

That's laughable dude.

 

[tsukasa]

they did. the reason is literally - if it's lewd. it's not for the front page.

A literal U.S. Supreme Court Justice dealt with the issue of hard core porn with "I know it when I see it," because stuff like this REQUIRE discretion.

You are asking BMR, an adult writing site, to adopt a scheme more restrictive than the US Supreme Court.

That's laughable dude.

For the fifth time (I'm counting), I'm not talking about my post specifically. This became about something I noticed with the site allowing arbitrary moderation if an actual rule wasn't broken; a staff member could just use "our discretion" and that's that. No defense, no evidence.