My Opinion

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

As moderator, I do agree non-worksafe material should be <lj-cut>. However, I do not believe this post is non-worksafe. All the "inappropriate" bits are covered up. I've seen nudity (barring certain specific areas of the body) in magazines in waiting rooms in offices so many times, that I don't see a problem with dykeprincess's post.

Comments

[jbsegal.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I agree with you.

My question is actually one of venue...it's an event in NYC. Yes, I know DP lives around here, but what does this even contribute to the community?

But again, yes, I agree that there was no need to cut it.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

While the event is in NYC, the post is about organizing a Boston-area pick up for clothing donations.

[hauntmeister.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's true that the "inappropriate" bits of the model in the photo were covered up. Nonetheless, it generated at least one request that the image be behind an lj-cut.

Technically, yes, this sort of image could be seen in magazines in waiting rooms. But I will argue there's a certain sort of expectation for what you see while leafing through a magazine in a waiting room, and a different expectation for what appears on your computer screen...When you may be at work, or with someone looking over your shoulder.

For example, although the Swedish Bikini Team (http://www.swedishbikiniteam.com/images/letsgosurfin.JPG) may appear in ads in a magazine, I believe it would be inappropriate for someone to use their image in a community LJ posting without a warning. (And, indeed, if I had included that picture as an IMG tag rather than an HREF, I fully expect that people would be raking me over the coals at this very moment.)

[sonofabish.livejournal.com]

I disagree with your judgement. I think in many offices the viewing of that picture would be considered inappropriate. Would it have killed dykeprincess to put it behind the cut? No, and instead, when requested to do so for very valid reasons, she takes it personally and insults people.

Just the fact that she didn't post a bandwidth-sucking pic behind a cut is annoying enough. I think it should be a rule of the community that all pics- worksafe or not- should be behind a cut and anything that could reasonably be considered non-worksafe labeled as so in the main post. C'mon, we are all adults here. Let's behave as such.

And if we are going to nitpick on technicalities here, the pickup point is in Boston, not Somerville, and therefore has absolutely no bearing upon our community.

[talonvaki.livejournal.com]

Excellent point, actually.
While I enjoy the luxury of a cable modem, not all do; that's a rather large photo.
Neverminding what it's of for the moment, it would have been more polite to put it behind a cut.

However, given the poster's responses to the requests that it be cut, I'm thinking perhaps politeness isn't high on her agenda.

[sonofabish.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

Since this is a community and there should be standards, if she violates the standards agains she should be banned. As should anyone else who violates them. There's enough places on the internet for this sort of thing.

[talonvaki.livejournal.com]

I am in three communities; in two it is standard protocol not only to lj-cut all photos, but all really long posts as well..."be kind, put it behind" or something...

Yeh, I just made that up. I'm lame.

[sonofabish.livejournal.com]

Perhaps, but you still make an excellent point. ;)

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

The thing is, though, is that there ARE standards, which are set by the moderator -- neitherday -- and you just don't happen to share them. She has no problem with the image that was posted. (As it happens, neither did I, but that's neither here nor there.) This is a journal set up and moderated by one person, AFAIK, and if she decides that no standard was violated, well, I'm sorry, but I think anyone who disagrees pretty much gets to suck it up and deal (or not, as they so choose). That's the beauty of a pull medium. If you have your own community and you moderate it, you can feel free to set such standards there and enforce them.

[on-reserve.livejournal.com]

The pick-up is for the Boston-area. At my home. In Davis Square. I don't see how it could be any more regionally appropriate.

[sonofabish.livejournal.com]

This was not explained in your post or on the poster. One would have had to write you to find that out. Point taken.

[on-reserve.livejournal.com]

Right. But I thought (and perhaps the assumption was too much on my part) that it would be fairly obvious that I wouldn't be posting in the community journal if my announcement had no connection.

It was basically a call for anyone in the Boston-area that I am putting myself up as a drop-off site, being in the Davis Square area, I thought people in this community might be *particularly* likely to be able to drop stuff off (proximity and all).

Next time I'll try to be more clear. I'll admit I was in a bit of a hurry to get the news out since I need to have everything dropped off by the 18th so I'm sorry if I missed some details.

image placeholders

[enmascarado.livejournal.com]

As a general public service note, if you go to your edit info page, you can check to have images replaced with image placeholders, so they won't show up in your friends page. I do this mainly because some people on my friends page have taken to posting many photos with their updates which kills my dial-up at home. A nice side effect: if someone posts a picture that I shouldn't be seeing at work, I don't see it. I didn't see the picture in dykeprincess's post or even know there was a controversy about it until this post.

And if you do decide you want to see the image someone posted, you can click on the place holder, or a read/post comment link.

If you're particularly nervous about what you view at work, this might be the option for you.

-Dan

Re: image placeholders

[on-reserve.livejournal.com]

Fine advice on how individuals can take responsibility/ownership for what they view online while at work (a.k.a while not working/goofing off) instead of blaming other for what they see :)

Re: image placeholders

[enmascarado.livejournal.com]

I don't necessarily disagree with the others, I just understand the path of least resistance.

Also, I'm surfing at work now, but I'm not goofing off, I just have down time. My office doesn't have the "be busy or look busy" philosophy. That might be the case with others.

-Dan

[bryant]

Good decision, IMHO. Thank you.

[lidiya6.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the image placeholders tip, Dan! I didn't know that.

i think your logic is skewed

[easy-wind.livejournal.com]

clearly, there are many people out there who do not feel the image is SFW. some of these people aren't lucky enough to have you as their boss.

in my opinion, you need to get off the fence and either:

-declare that anything questionable should go behind a cut, or;
-declare that anything goes

and for the record, i'm all for the "anything goes" option.

[hauntmeister.livejournal.com]

in my opinion, you need to get off the fence and either:

I'm for this. I don't care what the policy is, so long as there is one clearly spelled out. Perhaps "all images go behind a cut", "all images over 100 pixels high go behind a cut", or "all images are okay". Maybe either "all potentially non-worksafe content goes behind a cut" or "all content is okay".

I know some people don't like to have rules. But I find that communities in general function better if the rules are known and understood.

Re: i think your logic is skewed

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

I'm not on the fence. I consider that picture to be okay. I have said that some picture that are clearly not worksafe are not okay. I think most people here can use some common sense and figure out the difference. If there is a question, I will judge the picture, and determine whether it needs to be cut. As moderator, it is my decision what is allowable in the community.

And for those who want a pixel number, pictures greater than 500 pixels wide need to be cut.

[hauntmeister.livejournal.com]

I have said that some picture that are clearly not worksafe are not okay.

The issue is that the words "clearly" and "worksafe" are individually defined. Some people have different notions of what "clearly" means, and some workplaces are different from others. I work from home, for example, and very seldom have anybody looking over my shoulder. Some of the projects I work on ("worksafe", by definition) would not be suitable for this community. In a community, we need to have a shared notion of what's acceptable.

pictures greater than 500 pixels wide need to be cut.

Unless your screen is much smaller than mine, I think that was a typo. Make it "500 pixels high" and I'd be happy with it.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

As far as I'm concerned worksafe = something that isn't highly offensive (i.e. racist, etc.) and doesn't expose the bits of the body that American culture teaches us are "naughty". Any vague areas will be clarified by me as the need arises.

And 500 pixels wide wasn't a typo. A lot of people operate on a screen that's 640 pixels wide or less. The idea is to prevent horizontal scrolling.