Date Posted:4/5/12 12:28pmSubject:
What happened to all these inside bacon jokes?
BigBor posted: If the mods are enforcing rules beyond what the company demands, then that is a personal agenda and is hyppcritical if the comnpany itself is promoting the very thing they are modding. I doubt you can put together an argument that convinces anyone otherwise. It isn't DT that is setting the standard. It is IGN.
You're arguing from an idealistic standpoint, I'm arguing from a pragmatic one. Until IGN specifically revokes that portion of the clause ("where Moderators agree to allow them", it is what it is. You could always complain to IGN about the wording of their TOS and campaign for it to be changed, but until then, it's pretty much... well, where moderators agree to allow it.
-----signature-----
Elistra, 275th level Battle Og -- Frostfell
Naughty lil mage / Kachiko Kaiu / Everyone's Mule
Clan Takada.
4,662 posts in one week, 3-9-12 to 3-16-12.
Yes, that was 666 posts per day on average, and yes, that was intentional.
Date Posted:4/5/12 12:28pmSubject:
What happened to all these inside bacon jokes?
Hazel-wudi posted:
BigBor posted: If the mods are enforcing rules beyond what the company demands, then that is a personal agenda and is hyppcritical if the comnpany itself is promoting the very thing they are modding. I doubt you can put together an argument that convinces anyone otherwise. It isn't DT that is setting the standard. It is IGN.
You're arguing from an idealistic standpoint, I'm arguing from a pragmatic one. Until IGN specifically revokes that portion of the clause ("where Moderators agree to allow them", it is what it is. You could always complain to IGN about the wording of their TOS and campaign for it to be changed, but until then, it's pretty much... well, where moderators agree to allow it.
I am simply saying it would be hypocritical for moderators to be leaning heavily on the "where Moderators agree to allow them" clause when IGN itself is allowing it. What would the moderator be accomplishing by moderating bikini skin when the company itself is using bikini skin on the same forum to make money? No one is arguing a mod can't hide behind the clause and be a petty tyrant. But they would certainly be a hypocrtical petty tyrant nonetheless. It is what it is.
-----signature-----
Borwych / Borwyson / Kuku 1999
"None of us want to see your rectal facility basically destroyed" - Bhutt
"Just look for me spamming in /ct for stuff that doesn't exist." - Rhesus
"i want more booby type looking armor!!!" - Tika
"Wrong hole." - Rhesus
Date Posted:4/5/12 12:28pmSubject:
What happened to all these inside bacon jokes?
BigBor posted:
Hazel-wudi posted:
BigBor posted: If the mods are enforcing rules beyond what the company demands, then that is a personal agenda and is hyppcritical if the comnpany itself is promoting the very thing they are modding. I doubt you can put together an argument that convinces anyone otherwise. It isn't DT that is setting the standard. It is IGN.
You're arguing from an idealistic standpoint, I'm arguing from a pragmatic one. Until IGN specifically revokes that portion of the clause ("where Moderators agree to allow them", it is what it is. You could always complain to IGN about the wording of their TOS and campaign for it to be changed, but until then, it's pretty much... well, where moderators agree to allow it.
I am simply saying it would be hypocritical for moderators to be leaning heavily on the "where Moderators agree to allow them" clause when IGN itself is allowing it. What would the moderator be accomplishing by moderating bikini skin when the company itself is using bikini skin on the same forum to make money? No one is arguing a mod can't hide behind the clause and be a petty tyrant. But they would certainly be a hypocrtical petty tyrant nonetheless. It is what it is.
The two pictures involved are for entirely different purposes. One is an advertisement, i.e. something that generates revenue for IGN. The other... well frankly, it's primarily for men to gawk at, and has no purpose or point beyond that. I'm sure that if you could get Hormel or Oscar Meyer or someone to make an ad of your bacongirls, IGN would happily take their money, run it in the top righthand corner of the boards, and there'd not be a damn thing the mods could do about it.
Honestly though, if they ever did that I hope to god they'd use different girls. Have you looked into the eyes of the top "bacon girl?" Look closely. All you get is a sense of fear and pain, carefully guarded. It bothers me.
-----signature-----
Elistra, 275th level Battle Og -- Frostfell
Naughty lil mage / Kachiko Kaiu / Everyone's Mule
Clan Takada.
4,662 posts in one week, 3-9-12 to 3-16-12.
Yes, that was 666 posts per day on average, and yes, that was intentional.
Bhutthed Title: His Bhuttness Posts: 161 Registered: 2004-8-9 06:49:23
Date Posted:4/5/12 12:28pmSubject:
What happened to all these inside bacon jokes?
Somehow, this thread is getting away from the fact that bacon = rulez
-----signature-----
pwned irl by Lilly Lamage
SBT: the Short Bus Tribe
Bhutthed, Twelvepack, Bhutta - re-retired
Calin Moritan tells you, "xif" <3
God Bless our troops and their families
Date Posted:4/5/12 12:28pmSubject:
What happened to all these inside bacon jokes?
Hazel-wudi posted: The two pictures involved are for entirely different purposes. One is an advertisement, i.e. something that generates revenue for IGN. The other... well frankly, it's primarily for men to gawk at, and has no purpose or point beyond that. I'm sure that if you could get Hormel or Oscar Meyer or someone to make an ad of your bacongirls, IGN would happily take their money, run it in the top righthand corner of the boards, and there'd not be a damn thing the mods could do about it.
Honestly though, if they ever did that I hope to god they'd use different girls. Have you looked into the eyes of the top "bacon girl?" Look closely. All you get is a sense of fear and pain, carefully guarded. It bothers me.
Wow, just wow. You keep missing the point, over and over. The only question left, is it intentional or do you just not get it. I guess when you can't argue the point, change the subject.
I will simplify the question one last time to see if you can stay on point. Do you find it hypocritical for a company to take a position where they use bikini skin to make money advertising, but they would disallow bikini skin in their forum content? That is the equivalent of Penthouse Magazine not accepting condom ads because the sexual inference might offend a delicate reader.
To argue one generates ad revenue and the other has no purpose is naive. The only reason internet ads generate revenue is due to site traffic. If the users of your site want to post a picture of comedic bikini skin and other users want to comment and laugh about it, then that is generating site traffic. You can certainly take a stance that bikini skin is not appropriate for your website. But once you decide to post ads using bikini skin, you have lost that moral high ground.
-----signature-----
Borwych / Borwyson / Kuku 1999
"None of us want to see your rectal facility basically destroyed" - Bhutt
"Just look for me spamming in /ct for stuff that doesn't exist." - Rhesus
"i want more booby type looking armor!!!" - Tika
"Wrong hole." - Rhesus
Date Posted:4/5/12 12:28pmSubject:
What happened to all these inside bacon jokes?
BigBor posted:
Hazel-wudi posted: The two pictures involved are for entirely different purposes. One is an advertisement, i.e. something that generates revenue for IGN. The other... well frankly, it's primarily for men to gawk at, and has no purpose or point beyond that. I'm sure that if you could get Hormel or Oscar Meyer or someone to make an ad of your bacongirls, IGN would happily take their money, run it in the top righthand corner of the boards, and there'd not be a damn thing the mods could do about it.
Honestly though, if they ever did that I hope to god they'd use different girls. Have you looked into the eyes of the top "bacon girl?" Look closely. All you get is a sense of fear and pain, carefully guarded. It bothers me.
Wow, just wow. You keep missing the point, over and over. The only question left, is it intentional or do you just not get it. I guess when you can't argue the point, change the subject.
I will simplify the question one last time to see if you can stay on point. Do you find it hypocritical for a company to take a position where they use bikini skin to make money advertising, but they would disallow bikini skin in their forum content? That is the equivalent of Penthouse Magazine not accepting condom ads because the sexual inference might offend a delicate reader.
To argue one generates ad revenue and the other has no purpose is naive. The only reason internet ads generate revenue is due to site traffic. If the users of your site want to post a picture of comedic bikini skin and other users want to comment and laugh about it, then that is generating site traffic. You can certainly take a stance that bikini skin is not appropriate for your website. But once you decide to post ads using bikini skin, you have lost that moral high ground.
Is it so hypocritical? Frankly, we have yet to have a VN member post a picture on this forum of well-built men wearing a few scraps of food and nothing else. Do you want to post one of men and see if it gets modded too? Do you want me to post one? I can go looking around on the internet and find one, maybe? I'm quite open to testing this.
As for the rest of it, by your logic a good isht joke is the same as an ad, because it generates revenue via increased site traffic. If you truly believe this, then do your part for IGN and tell us plenty. Thanks.
Beefy men wearing food and tons of isht jokes... ah, I love the smell of rules lawyering in the morning.
-----signature-----
Elistra, 275th level Battle Og -- Frostfell
Naughty lil mage / Kachiko Kaiu / Everyone's Mule
Clan Takada.
4,662 posts in one week, 3-9-12 to 3-16-12.
Yes, that was 666 posts per day on average, and yes, that was intentional.
Date Posted:4/5/12 12:29pmSubject:
What happened to all these inside bacon jokes?
Hazel-wudi posted:
BigBor posted:
Hazel-wudi posted: The two pictures involved are for entirely different purposes. One is an advertisement, i.e. something that generates revenue for IGN. The other... well frankly, it's primarily for men to gawk at, and has no purpose or point beyond that. I'm sure that if you could get Hormel or Oscar Meyer or someone to make an ad of your bacongirls, IGN would happily take their money, run it in the top righthand corner of the boards, and there'd not be a damn thing the mods could do about it.
Honestly though, if they ever did that I hope to god they'd use different girls. Have you looked into the eyes of the top "bacon girl?" Look closely. All you get is a sense of fear and pain, carefully guarded. It bothers me.
Wow, just wow. You keep missing the point, over and over. The only question left, is it intentional or do you just not get it. I guess when you can't argue the point, change the subject.
I will simplify the question one last time to see if you can stay on point. Do you find it hypocritical for a company to take a position where they use bikini skin to make money advertising, but they would disallow bikini skin in their forum content? That is the equivalent of Penthouse Magazine not accepting condom ads because the sexual inference might offend a delicate reader.
To argue one generates ad revenue and the other has no purpose is naive. The only reason internet ads generate revenue is due to site traffic. If the users of your site want to post a picture of comedic bikini skin and other users want to comment and laugh about it, then that is generating site traffic. You can certainly take a stance that bikini skin is not appropriate for your website. But once you decide to post ads using bikini skin, you have lost that moral high ground.
Is it so hypocritical? Frankly, we have yet to have a VN member post a picture on this forum of well-built men wearing a few scraps of food and nothing else. Do you want to post one of men and see if it gets modded too? Do you want me to post one? I can go looking around on the internet and find one, maybe? I'm quite open to testing this.
As for the rest of it, by your logic a good isht joke is the same as an ad, because it generates revenue via increased site traffic. If you truly believe this, then do your part for IGN and tell us plenty. Thanks.
Beefy men wearing food and tons of isht jokes... ah, I love the smell of rules lawyering in the morning.
Yes, yes it is hypocritical. And I could care less what you post. I am not easily offended. Post whatever you want. Again not the point. And no, an isht joke is not relevant, beacuse IGN is not yet using them for advertising. Again not the point. Keep it apples to apples.
You just can't stay on point. You are so all over the board it is never possible to discuss a simple point. The bacon bikini is no more revealing than the calvin klein ad you are so fond of (less so since you can't see the outline of genetalia like the man bulge in the add). Yes it is hypocritical to censor pictures in the forum when you are using similar pictures for advertising. Done.
-----signature-----
Borwych / Borwyson / Kuku 1999
"None of us want to see your rectal facility basically destroyed" - Bhutt
"Just look for me spamming in /ct for stuff that doesn't exist." - Rhesus
"i want more booby type looking armor!!!" - Tika
"Wrong hole." - Rhesus
, it is what it is. You could always complain to IGN about the wording of their TOS and campaign for it to be changed, but until then, it's pretty much... well, where moderators agree to allow it. 
