Photo deletion criteria

[friend26]

I don't know what criteria they follow when it comes to removing images, if you have an important position, you have the right to put any type of material, but the rest of us always receive the removal when the photos show much more than others than if they are allowed. happens I find the memory for which I stopped wasting so much time sharing. Most of what I put ends up eliminated and then I see that other images that teach less are not only not eliminated, they are grateful.

Really these images have no place in the forum?¿


But these images do?¿


I am just trying to understand if it is worthwhile to continue trying and wasting my time to find a lot of material that has been so difficult to find and share, deleted.
I stopped sharing for a long time for this reason. When I received a private requesting me to replace material that had fallen, I thought that after so long things would be different. But they are still the same. I waste hours to find photos that are surely deleted just by looking at the miniature.
In my profile it says that I am a respected member. But I do not feel respected. And I suppose that my case is not the only one.

 

[KABOOM]

First off, I do want to thank you for your contributions because you do post a lot of worthwhile content. I was not the moderator who moved any of your posts so I can't speak to the exact reasons they were moved. I do have to agree that on some of the ones that I did a deeper look at, I was confused on why your posts were removed. Specifically on the Olivia Wilde b/w topless photo the only thing I could maybe see is that it was contained in the expanded galleries on picture posts already in the thread, but not explicitly posted in the thread. The Olivia Munn one, I can only assume it was removed since it was just a cropped version of any earlier picture posted, but if it was posted by her on her instagram account it's more of a judgement call. Hopefully the moderator or moderators who moved them will chime in here.

 

[yakovitch]

I was wondering about the first 3 pics myself, but KABOOM's speculations make sense. The pics showcasing the baby bump are no different than feet, elbow or whatever other fetish pics we don't allow here. Social media images are generally of lower quality and often don't show a lot nor are very sexy, so they are held to a different standard when checking posts. I actually think we err on the side of keeping too many borderline images, myself included. I'm sorry you feel targeted friend, but the fact is the rules have gotten quite a bit laxer over the past few years. We will never please everybody but hopefully there are some who actually appreciate that we try to keep to a certain standard in the pic section.

 

[friend26]

KABOOM and Yakovitch.I appreciate your explanations, sometimes I can be wrong, but I try to follow the criteria of the forum when sharing and on many occasions it is difficult not to understand the reason why they are eliminated.In the image of olivia wilde I did not know that it was repeated, I never look at the galleries. I thought that all the images were put in the thumbnail to make it easier for others to know what is shared.
I do not know if I have understood correctly, you can not share images of pregnant women? I ask why I usually put images that go in a bikini, naked or in underwear.But I thought I understood that they are eliminated because there is a minor in the image, is that so?

 

[yakovitch]

KABOOM and Yakovitch.I appreciate your explanations, sometimes I can be wrong, but I try to follow the criteria of the forum when sharing and on many occasions it is difficult not to understand the reason why they are eliminated.In the image of olivia wilde I did not know that it was repeated, I never look at the galleries. I thought that all the images were put in the thumbnail to make it easier for others to know what is shared.
I do not know if I have understood correctly, you can not share images of pregnant women? I ask why I usually put images that go in a bikini, naked or in underwear.But I thought I understood that they are eliminated because there is a minor in the image, is that so?

I don't know of any preggo pics that show breast or vag that have been removed, if you know of any please point them out. Any other pic that basically just showcases the baby bump should be removed. If you want to start a fetish thread for preggo pics I suggest you do it in the Misc Groups & Shows section. And yes, any images containing a minor will be promptly removed.

 

[blueoystercult]

Ok. Let's deal with the first three.
1 Leaving aside for a moment the fact that there is nothing "sexually appealing" about that photo unlless ypu have some very disturbing predillictions, it features an underaged Rose McIver.
I have one absolute. No kids. No ifs, buts, maybes, blurs or blots. 1 is a nostalgia pic shared on social media. This is an adult forum. On my watch kids have no business being on here.
2. The Olivia Wilde pic. Is in all the preceeding leaks galleries. It doesn't need to be there.
3. Olivia Munn. It's just a crop of a previous social media post so the caption has been removed. It's not a better resolution. It's not a larger size. It's just a crop. Crops are just duplicates. They are not allowed.
I could go on about duplication, piss poor preggo fetish selfies that show absolutely nothing but a gravid stomach, lack of any kind of sexual allure yadda yadda but I think those three make my point perfectly.
If images or posts are removed it's with good reason and perfectly justified. The reason why you are suddenly griping is because, following a post where you displayed 12 images in nine rows you were asked, perfectly reasonably and politely, to either post to a file host that doesn't change image names so your formatting would not be necessary or to reduce your thumb size to a more reasonable 150px so your lengthy posts don't completely obliterate every page they appear on. and when you chose to turn that into a bitchfest playing the poor me victim card you were told to pull your head in. Now you're spitting your dummy in public. Again.
Over the last few years since the current team have been in place the criteria for posting in the Pictures section has been relaxed enormously. However we still have rules and those rules must be followed.
We cut people a great deal of slack and try to make things as easy going as possible but no-one, not even moderators, get to ignore the rules. I don't give a toss how much anyone posts. If they flout the rules those rule breaches will be cleared.
BOC

 

[friend26]

Ok. Let's deal with the first three.
1 Leaving aside for a moment the fact that there is nothing "sexually appealing" about that photo unlless ypu have some very disturbing predillictions, it features an underaged Rose McIver.
I have one absolute. No kids. No ifs, buts, maybes, blurs or blots. 1 is a nostalgia pic shared on social media. This is an adult forum. On my watch kids have no business being on here.
2. The Olivia Wilde pic. Is in all the preceeding leaks galleries. It doesn't need to be there.
3. Olivia Munn. It's just a crop of a previous social media post so the caption has been removed. It's not a better resolution. It's not a larger size. It's just a crop. Crops are just duplicates. They are not allowed.
I could go on about duplication, piss poor preggo fetish selfies that show absolutely nothing but a gravid stomach, lack of any kind of sexual allure yadda yadda but I think those three make my point perfectly.
If images or posts are removed it's with good reason and perfectly justified. The reason why you are suddenly griping is because, following a post where you displayed 12 images in nine rows you were asked, perfectly reasonably and politely, to either post to a file host that doesn't change image names so your formatting would not be necessary or to reduce your thumb size to a more reasonable 150px so your lengthy posts don't completely obliterate every page they appear on. and when you chose to turn that into a bitchfest playing the poor me victim card you were told to pull your head in. Now you're spitting your dummy in public. Again.
Over the last few years since the current team have been in place the criteria for posting in the Pictures section has been relaxed enormously. However we still have rules and those rules must be followed.
We cut people a great deal of slack and try to make things as easy going as possible but no-one, not even moderators, get to ignore the rules. I don't give a toss how much anyone posts. If they flout the rules those rule breaches will be cleared.
BOC

1-Your insinuation I seek to do harm, if I do it towards you I would now have my account deleted.I would NEVER consciously share images of minors.I thought the image you are commenting was recent. I never read what is said in the publications because of the problem with the language.In the deleted photo of Laura Pausini she is in underwear, is that not sexy? Vanessa Marcil's cleavage views are not a sexy photo either?¿
2-I did not see the photo of olivia wilde, I did not enter image galleries. when I publish images I try to go looking from the first to the last page and sometimes there are too many images to view, but if the galleries contain images that are not seen in The thumbnails that are shared in the forum make it very difficult to share and can have life outside the forum.
3-Olivia Munn's photo is a closer photo to the one that was already shared, but bigger and without any poster.
Finally, I want to make it clear that I did not mind that he asked me not to post rows of images.I did it to help the forum to always maintain the possibility of recovering all the images that could delete the pages where the images are hosted.For you I am a crybaby for complaining about things that I do not understand.I already told him that there are pages of images that I cannot see and as long as I can do it in one that is not prohibited and the only problem that occurs is that it renames files, I will continue to share on that page, but I will not cry again, when I do not understand something I will shut up, I will share as the companions of this forum do, I will only arrive and put the images, if they are accepted, great, and if they are not, I will not hear my tantrums or crying.

 

[blueoystercult]

You have consistently posted images that have included children. when I brought it to your attention previously you started adding blobs on their faces. I continued to remove them and I always will. I took one look at that Morrison/McIver image and I searched to find its histry because it was bloody obvious to me she was very young in it. Took me all of 30 second to find it was a nostalgia pic from her childhood.
As I wrote. I have one absolute. No kids on here. At all. EVER.
The moment admin permits children I will leave. They have no business on any adult oriented forum.
As for the rest, asked and answered. And no. the Olivia Munn photo is not larger. It's the same bloody umage, cropped. I pulled them both into photoshop and checked before I removed your post because I do my job properly. Exactly the same with the Katharine McPhee red swimsuit shot. Nothing more than a piss poor crop and blow up of the previous post. I could list every singe one I worked on here but frankly that's nothing more than an insult. I don't remove images without cause, I don't victimise or bully people and I try to be polite. Even I have my limits however and you are dangerously close, now.
Be advised.
Every post or image removed has been so because it infringed on at least one rule. It is as simple and straightforward as that.
You took a simple request on an unrelated issue that gave you two perfectly reasonable options politely framed and turned it into this public bitchfest in an attempt to portray yourself as some kind of victim and me as a draconian bastard unappreciative of your godlike poster status, despite the fact that I have cut you a ton of slack.
Or did all of those rule infringements come with official warnings and infractions?
No of course they didn't. I just quietly set things right and let you carry on.
FFS.
We get this every bloody time because you seem to be under the impression that you are above the rules and they shouldn't apply to you.
Grow up.
BOC

 

[yakovitch]

I'd just like to point out that the images/posts you are talking about only resulted in them being removed... which in some cases infractions could have been assessed. Perhaps you should consider that we are actually cutting you a lot of slack and not hounding you about it. To your points:
1-To be clear, NONE of your examples qualify as keep-able.
2-Re-posts are usually just removed and rarely infracted for this very reason. Habitual re-posting is another matter.
3-It's cropped... the actual size of Olivia in the image is virtually indistinguishable.
Finally, providing dates and other info for multiple social media images in a single post just takes up too much space when it gets to 5 rows or more.

1-Your insinuation I seek to do harm, if I do it towards you I would now have my account deleted.I would NEVER consciously share images of minors.I thought the image you are commenting was recent. I never read what is said in the publications because of the problem with the language.In the deleted photo of Laura Pausini she is in underwear, is that not sexy? Vanessa Marcil's cleavage views are not a sexy photo either?¿
2-I did not see the photo of olivia wilde, I did not enter image galleries. when I publish images I try to go looking from the first to the last page and sometimes there are too many images to view, but if the galleries contain images that are not seen in The thumbnails that are shared in the forum make it very difficult to share and can have life outside the forum.
3-Olivia Munn's photo is a closer photo to the one that was already shared, but bigger and without any poster.
Finally, I want to make it clear that I did not mind that he asked me not to post rows of images.I did it to help the forum to always maintain the possibility of recovering all the images that could delete the pages where the images are hosted.For you I am a crybaby for complaining about things that I do not understand.I already told him that there are pages of images that I cannot see and as long as I can do it in one that is not prohibited and the only problem that occurs is that it renames files, I will continue to share on that page, but I will not cry again, when I do not understand something I will shut up, I will share as the companions of this forum do, I will only arrive and put the images, if they are accepted, great, and if they are not, I will not hear my tantrums or crying.

***While I was re-checking the images friend questioned boc posted his reply which I had not seen until after posting this... we independently had pretty much the exact same answers to the questions, so I hope that shows we don't just randomly remove stuff.

 

[friend26]

You have consistently posted images that have included children. when I brought it to your attention previously you started adding blobs on their faces. I continued to remove them and I always will. I took one look at that Morrison/McIver image and I searched to find its histry because it was bloody obvious to me she was very young in it. Took me all of 30 second to find it was a nostalgia pic from her childhood.
As I wrote. I have one absolute. No kids on here. At all. EVER.
The moment admin permits children I will leave. They have no business on any adult oriented forum.
As for the rest, asked and answered. And no. the Olivia Munn photo is not larger. It's the same bloody umage, cropped. I pulled them both into photoshop and checked before I removed your post because I do my job properly. Every post or image removed has been so because it infringed on at least one rule. It is as simple and straightforward as that.
You took a simple request that gave you two perfectly reasonable options politely framed and turned it into this public bitchfest in an attempt to portray yourself as some kind of victim and me as a draconian bastard unappreciative of your godlike poster status despite the fact that I have cut you a ton of slack.
Or did all of those rule infringements come with official warnings and infractions?
No of course they didn't. I just quietly set things right and let you carry on.
FFS.
We get this every bloody time because you seem to be under the impression that you are above the rules and they shouldn't apply to you.
Grow up.
BOC

Can you share with me the images that you say that I put openly as children without covering? I have never shared photos of children that had not been eliminated, covering the minor with stains.since I was told that not even covering it was allowed, I stopped putting images where they appeared.I do not read the comments of the images that are published on social networks because of my language problem, and the McIver photo I did not think was old.I would like you to do your thirty second searches in languages that you do not speak, so perhaps I would stop using it as an argument to point out a mistake that anyone who does not understand what is being said could have made.
Do you believe that my public complaint was about you?My question was when I saw that images were eliminated that I did not understand which rule violated.
The only thing I comment on and what you cling to to justify your attitude with me, is the private one that I received from you to replace material deleted by the pages where the images are housed,but I never point out that you are the one who deletes the images that I now share.I did not know who deleted the images from me and I did not know the reason why many of them were deleted.¿You say that you are not the one who removes the images but it bothers you that I openly ask to know who does it and what is the reason for doing it?
I have never consciously stopped respecting the rules.the only images of minors that you can find uncovered,they will be showing only their back.And that can only be when I started in this forum and saw how others shared it and it was allowed.I would never express to a minor like you suggest.I can be wrong as in the case of McIver, but I am not a garbage of those who enjoy children.

 

[blueoystercult]

I didn't do a search in a languiage I don't speakl. I put the image into image search engines of which Google images was just one and all turned up with answers. you could do it. You just didn't because you don't.You sling up whatever you like and when resolve an issue you've caused, or we point out a problem and ask you to correct or offer a solution you turn it into a "poor me" the victim diatribe. Until the last couple of days it was a petty annoyance. Now it's been elevated to fully offensive because having turned a reasonable private request and an attempt at polite discussion into a row and been told to pull your neck in, you've come onto the public discussion section pulling the victim card and trying to make me look like an unreasonable twat.
Didn't work though because everything done with your posts was about your rule breaches and so was fully justifiable.
I'd like tp point out also that some of those images I didn't remove, which as well as the agreement between moderators here, demonstrates the consensus standard we have built and operate now.
As for giving you examples of images containing children, I deleted them, you idiot.
NOTHING will get an adult forum closed down faster than someone showing images containing children are being shared.
Even someone who speaks another language should understamd that basic concept.
Just stop now. You're embarrassing yourself.
BOC

 

[friend26]

I'd just like to point out that the images/posts you are talking about only resulted in them being removed... which in some cases infractions could have been assessed. Perhaps you should consider that we are actually cutting you a lot of slack and not hounding you about it. To your points:
1-To be clear, NONE of your examples qualify as keep-able.
2-Re-posts are usually just removed and rarely infracted for this very reason. Habitual re-posting is another matter.
3-It's cropped... the actual size of Olivia in the image is virtually indistinguishable.
Finally, providing dates and other info for multiple social media images in a single post just takes up too much space when it gets to 5 rows or more.





***While I was re-checking the images friend questioned boc posted his reply which I had not seen until after posting this... we independently had pretty much the exact same answers to the questions, so I hope that shows we don't just randomly remove stuff.

A logical explanation.I'm not trying to be right, just to understand why I see images that are less provocative than the ones that were deleted in my case and I didn't understand what was happening.Now I understand what has happened in many of them and it seems logical to me that they were eliminated.This post sought to understand what was happening with what I shared. I thought that since there were so many moderators, each one thought in one way and in the end what was worth for some was not worth for others and they ended up eliminating it.
There are images like that of Vanessa Marcil and some more than me if I see a good cleavage and a great view of her chest, it is not repeated and it is difficult for me to continue understanding its elimination, but in general I have understood that there are galleries outside the forum where there are more images of those that are seen in the miniatures and where people put many things there that then those of us who do not visit those galleries usually repeat.The images should all be in the forum even if their thumbnail is smaller, the people we share regularly have to review many pages each time we share and the galleries with images that are not visible in the forum are very difficult to view together with all of them. the pages that are in each post of each famous.