Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
Everyone willing to live in a functioning society must therefore be a masochistic pervert morbidly fascinated with the pain of having to behave. You have now terribly exposed us all and we feel so naked and humiliated.
Most people in society don't express a desire to be dominated by others, unlike what we see here. So I wonder if there's more of a willingness to be told what to do without having a say in those who seek domination. Typically, at least in America, establishing rules through a democratized process that allows for personal autonomy is highly valued. But it seems to be the exact opposite here, and I find that interesting.
There is no such thing as a community. There are just next to mindless horny guys individually liking an image. Nobody decided any such thing and being on the front page is not a reward due to anyone. The front page is there to inform people and it's perfectly reasonable not to inform them of questionable images. Eun Hee Kang literally did not deserve to be there and removing her actually fixed that mishap.
I agree. It's not about rewarding anyone, but IMO that means there's no harm in keeping her in there. It's not a competition, no one is being rewarded for something they probably don't care about or even know exists. So who is harmed by her being in there... It simply makes the site easier and quicker to use. You can check the high score section for the best recent photos instead of constantly browsing due to certain people being restricted. So to say it's not a reward to be in the top score, then to follow that with she doesn't deserve to be there seems contradictory. Nonetheless, when hundreds of people vote her there, that indicates this is purely a matter of opinion/preference that we'll have to agree to disagree on.
Tall1 responding to superiorgenetics:
> It's weird you're upset over someone expressing their opinion.
Be careful. It is a well-known and widely publicized trait of narcissistic personality disorder to attempt to gain the upper hand in a discussion or an argument by painting the other person as upset, overreacting, emotional or out of control. Both when it is not the case at all and when the other person has some perfectly good reason to disagree a bit more strongly.
Yes, heaven forbid I get a terrible reputation amongst people who can't have a civil discussion over how a fetish site is run. Find hobbies if this is worth getting emotional over.
Joke's on them. I've outsourced all of my comments to an AI. Including this one.
Find hobbies if this is worth getting emotional over.
Oops you did it again.
When I say someone is emotional or stupid, that's because their argument has literally been an appeal to emotion, followed by something that clearly shows they think emotion can stand for logic or reason. People feel crushed, disappointed, paternalized, oppressed and unwelcome because their comment got rejected. The emotion is right there in the plain meaning of the words. Pointing out that "an emotion is not an argument" is a perfectly valid and logical response.
It would be different if they explained what they mean by paternalism and why it applies here or why any rules equal censorship or oppression. This filter, 90 % of the time when it works, is like keeping wild animals out of one's cabbage patch. Stopping people or animals who don't know what they're doing from making a mess.
I think you're underhanded because you pretend to be able to read between the lines that the other person is emotional or out of control even when there is a technically valid argument. You prefer to insinuate that someone has gone overboard instead of addressing his point.
So who is harmed by her being in there...
Passive-aggressiveness is a form of emotionalism that is not in the plain meaning of the words but obvious nevertheless. It includes overuse of sarcasm and seeing "irony" that presupposes that your point has already been made. One form of passive-aggressiveness is to derail the discussion by excluding other valid views by definition, instead of openly. You're the only one who is suddenly talking about harm. I am not required to demonstrate harm. The site has been all along about pictures of particular persons that exist in reality.
You must draw the line somewhere. Or actually the admins must draw the line somewhere.
There is no essential rule embedded in the fabric of the universe that would tell what a fetish site should exclude or include. I am not saying there is some eternal wisdom in excluding transgendered, morphed, competition and beauty-lensed images (or children, corpses, drawings, nudes, sex dolls or muscular female animals). It just makes good practical sense. Excluding all minor retouching, makeup or PEDs would not. GWM is not DeviantArt.
Nonetheless, when hundreds of people vote her there...
Except that they still didn't. They simply liked a photo. Nobody promised them a democratic process. Neither are they entitled to a democratic process without knowing it. Especially a democratic process that would accidentally elect an ineligible candidate.
It's just a dumb and unworkable analogy to mistake this site for a nation and users for its citizens.
> > Personally, I'd rather not see someone like Eun-hee on the site. South Korean girls go above and beyond when it comes to photoshop and she's one of the most egregious examples. I think it's gross, but I'm also not so self-absorbed as to whine about it if the community feels differently. What makes you think the majority of people agree with you, though? It's so weird that you keep whining like a baby about minutiae when the content is free.
I don't mind if everyone disagreed with me on Eunhee, the point is the community should decide instead of a single person. If she never gets enough votes to make high score again, then so be it. If she does, then that should be fine too. The community should dictate these things. But ultimately, I agree it's not worth arguing over. It's weird you're upset over someone expressing their opinion.
I'm not upset, I'm laughing at you, particularly the insinuation that anybody who doesn't mind the moderation has a submissive personality. That's big dumb. They probably just have a sense of perspective.
"The community" is not paying for the site so why should they get to decide?
Oops you did it again.
When I say someone is emotional or stupid, that's because their argument has literally been an appeal to emotion, followed by something that clearly shows they think emotion can stand for logic or reason. People feel crushed, disappointed, paternalized, oppressed and unwelcome because their comment got rejected. The emotion is right there in the plain meaning of the words. Pointing out that "an emotion is not an argument" is a perfectly valid and logical response.
None of my comments have ever been filtered, so it's difficult to feel disappointment over something that has never happened and likely never would. The logic is to build a community where the people decide who gets visibility as it provides the best UX. My logic is to keep 16-year old's off the site because, one, it's creepy, and two gives the site a bad rep which could lead to more requests to be removed. More specifically, treat underaged girls with the same fervent as they do with photoshopped pics. Whether you agree with that or not, that is a logical argument.
It would be different if they explained what they mean by paternalism and why it applies here or why any rules equal censorship or oppression. This filter, 90 % of the time when it works, is like keeping wild animals out of one's cabbage patch. Stopping people or animals who don't know what they're doing from making a mess.
This needs to be directed to the people who have made that argument, not me.
I think you're underhanded because you pretend to be able to read between the lines that the other person is emotional or out of control even when there is a technically valid argument. You prefer to insinuate that someone has gone overboard instead of addressing his point.
What point have I not addressed? I'm underhanded because your comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. But I never said your argument isn't valid. I recognize there are two legitimate sides to this which is why I'm taking a side that lets everyone decide for their selves - opposed to forcing a particular preference on everyone else. You're not wrong for not liking Eunhee's content, and I never said you were. It's impossible to say anyone is wrong in an argument that's based solely on a matter of personal preference.
Passive-aggressiveness is a form of emotionalism that is not in the plain meaning of the words but obvious nevertheless. It includes overuse of sarcasm and seeing "irony" that presupposes that your point has already been made. One form of passive-aggressiveness is to derail the discussion by excluding other valid views by definition, instead of openly. You're the only one who is suddenly talking about harm. I am not required to demonstrate harm. The site has been all along about pictures of particular persons that exist in reality.
So, ironically, you're not required to back your argument with logic. Funny how that works. I backed mine when I discussed how it impacts browsing the site - the additional time required to find, IMO, great content. Your only argument is, "she doesn't deserve to be there". Deserve, without any further context, sounds like it might be an emotional appeal. My argument has nothing to do with what she does or does not deserve.
You must draw the line somewhere. Or actually the admins must draw the line somewhere.
There is no essential rule embedded in the fabric of the universe that would tell what a fetish site should exclude or include. I am not saying there is some eternal wisdom in excluding transgendered, morphed, competition and beauty-lensed images (or children, corpses, drawings, nudes, sex dolls or muscular female animals). It just makes good practical sense. Excluding all minor retouching, makeup or PEDs would not. GWM is not DeviantArt.
Except that they still didn't. They simply liked a photo. Nobody promised them a democratic process. Neither are they entitled to a democratic process without knowing it. Especially a democratic process that would accidentally elect an ineligible candidate.
It's just a dumb and unworkable analogy to mistake this site for a nation and users for its citizens.
The analogy was not specifically about nations and citizens. It's not the only relationship where the people have a say in how things transpire. Nonetheless, I recognize he can do whatever he wants with his site. There are simply pros and cons to the way in which it's run, and I expressed them.
Tall1 wrote to Chainer:
So essentially, the community decided she deserved to be in the high score, and you said no.
Then I said:
Eun Hee Kang literally did not deserve to be there and removing her actually fixed that mishap.
My argument was twofold. First that it's not about deserving to be there, at all, because it's not a vote or a pageant. Second that even if it was, by editing her pictures she "cheated" and it does not matter how many fell for it.
Then Tall1 wrote:
Your only argument is, "she doesn't deserve to be there". Deserve, without any further context, sounds like it might be an emotional appeal. My argument has nothing to do with what she does or does not deserve.
I did give further context. In the paragraph you quoted earlier I already referred to the front page not being a democratic process and having her there being bad information. If morphed heads and beauty-lensed faces are accepted it's not just a choice between them and other pictures. It decreases the value of all the other pictures too.
As a rule, adding noise to something does not make it a free choice between noise and signal. Decreasing the amount of noise increases the value of the information. Only a total chaos "does not force a particular preference on everyone else".
But you are too fixated on irony, sarcasm, being passive-aggressive, bitchy and throwing words back to notice. It was not my only argument. It wasn't even my argument to begin with.
The only technically valid attack or accusation you have made was about closing threads, where I initially ignored your point about a thread not having been sufficiently answered and focused on similar complaints I was more familiar with.
My initial hunch was that if your complaint was valid, then you could have brought it up on a case-by-case basis with the moderators. But instead of an innocent you being carelessly shut up by them, I think there were real disagreements on whether the threads should have continued. I was not ready to take your word for it, nor side with you on it, and I think I did well.
Tall1 wrote to Chainer:
Then I said:
My argument was twofold. First that it's not about deserving to be there, at all, because it's not a vote or a pageant. Second that even if it was, by editing her pictures she "cheated" and it does not matter how many fell for it.
It literally is a vote. But you're right it's not a pageant. It's not that people fell for it, some people just don't care about what her face looks like in reality vs her photos.
Then Tall1 wrote:
I did give further context. In the paragraph you quoted earlier I already referred to the front page not being a democratic process and having her there being bad information. If morphed heads and beauty-lensed faces are accepted it's not just a choice between them and other pictures. It decreases the value of all the other pictures too.
Beauty lensed faces are accepted. This type of stuff is only brought up when Asian women use it though. There are photos/videos of other women who filter their selves to the point they almost look like cartoons, but there's no push to remove this content. Plenty of women filter the shade of their photos/body to hide fat and generally make their body appear more toned than it is. But again, these types of images aren't being removed, unless it's an Asian woman doing it then it's a big cultural problem as if they're the only ones filtering.
And again, you need enough votes to get in the top score.
As a rule, adding noise to something does not make it a free choice between noise and signal. Decreasing the amount of noise increases the value of the information. Only a total chaos "does not force a particular preference on everyone else".
No. An optional block feature would have been a better solution. Then you can keep the women you deem as noise out.
But you are too fixated on irony, sarcasm, being passive-aggressive, bitchy and throwing words back to notice. It was not my only argument. It wasn't even my argument to begin with.
The only technically valid attack or accusation you have made was about closing threads, where I initially ignored your point about a thread not having been sufficiently answered and focused on similar complaints I was more familiar with.
My initial hunch was that if your complaint was valid, then you could have brought it up on a case-by-case basis with the moderators. But instead of an innocent you being carelessly shut up by them, I think there were real disagreements on whether the threads should have continued. I was not ready to take your word for it, nor side with you on it, and I think I did well.
You deserve a pat on the back.
But for the record, they weren't my threads and are too old to go fishing for.
@superiorgenetics
Without the community there would be no site. Also there wouldn't be ads on this site.
For getting Ads the site needs a good reputation of the community so it is wae essential to stop a few from ruin reputation of all by writing uncontrolled their phantasies or spam pics by just endless write instant crap
There is more people commenting on the filter than commenting on pics & videos now! The site's gone mad.
Then we will just wait it out. These are two completely independent variables. The amount of people riding a bicycle in Amsterdam proves nothing about the amount of people boarding a plane in Cleveland.
I submit the following:
For the following picture:
The first two were accepted.
1) She’s perfection
2) 20 fuckin years old.
The following was NOT.
She is a goddess.
Your comment doesn't meet the minimum quality threshold.
OK, it doesn't add anything, but how is it different from the first two as far as quality? Be consistent.
2) 20 fuckin years old.
This adds something. I didn't know she was only 20. It gives some perspective on what's happening out there.
This comment was just rejected:
"Yes, and that is a very sexy pose that really shows what she looks like and how much muscle she has put on."
On a Marissa Andrews image 'So Cute' was rejected, but 'She's ugly' was accepted. MQT needs a lot more than tweaking.
This was explained here and all the other related treads a 1000 times , but some people dont want to get it and find endless excuses and reasons why they feel discriminated
Only Problem is same every time when restrictations are necessary, it Hits all and not only the few Problematic. But sorry this is the way it is, some loose but the main community wins.
This was explained here and all the other related treads a 1000 times , but some people dont want to get it and find endless excuses and reasons why they feel discriminated
Only Problem is same every time when restrictations are necessary, it Hits all and not only the few Problematic. But sorry this is the way it is, some loose but the main community wins.<
I get your point. They can't afford this site if they have to have a live monitor at all times, so they rely on an algorithm of some kind. And I have to agree that occasionally in the old days there were some sexually disrespectful comments. I don't see those as much any more. Simply knowing that some of the women visit this site made me rethink some of the things I used to write. In those days I was sort of going with the flow. There were even women on the site who wrote things that I think are no longer permitted.
@Reggieiv:
OK, it doesn't add anything, but how is it different from the first two as far as quality? Be consistent.
No matter how often this is explained, people misunderstand it again and again. The filter is consistent. One part of it is to suppress repetitive comments, because that's a sure sign the comment is not uniquely related to the picture. It is different from the two others because thus far it has been less common. Of course the other two were also relatively low effort.
@Scythian:
I noticed that the filter is biased against anything resembling a compliment. Compliments are interpreted as creepy even if respectful. Other types of short and succinct comments are accepted.
@Reggieiv:
And I have to agree that occasionally in the old days there were some sexually disrespectful comments. I don't see those as much any more.
The second thing people misunderstand constantly is that crude and lewd comments were not the biggest and not the only problem. So they whine about how they are dying to compliment, compliment and compliment. And they wonder how complimenting, that is drooling aloud can be a bad thing? "She rejected my Monopoly money! How dare she! I am not her fan and not a fan of this site anymore."
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid." Probably the only interesting thing Kierkegaard ever said, but there it is. Also, real freedom of thought is to figure out the true nature of things, not to think whatever you please. This is probably one thing Kierkegaard would have got wrong.
First stage of learning is to act surprised that many compliments are rejected.
Second stage of learning is to confirm that this is indeed the case.
Third stage of learning is to let it sink in that this has been done on purpose. Because most compliments rarely say anything unique about the picture. Most compliments are repetitive. Most compliments are easy to make.
Fourth stage of learning is to understand that no amount of self-righteous exasperation is going to change it. Also because all the reasons were already given in the third stage. "But those are compliments!!! And compliments are always good! How can you reject a good thing? Are you evil perhaps?"
Compliments are fool's gold. This is the fifth stage of learning. Any person's horniness (also obsequiousness) holds value 99 % of the time for one person only, and that's the individual himself. The one percent is either the person you are going to spend the night with or a woman who is reading the comments and enjoys what she sees. They do exist but at the same time they make up less than a thousandth of the user base.
Now I really don't claim to know the mind of people making the decisions. These are only my educated guesses. But at least I know that this site is not a public service for the expression of horniness. This site is also not a temple to these so-called "goddesses" or "perfections" or the great female muscle simping ground, so the words or opinions of the women are no excuse or justification for some particular random compliment caught by the filter. They may like compliments in general, but your single compliment is hardly going to make or break anything for them, but even less than that it gives you any ammunition against the filter or the admin. It is a disservice to everyone, including yourself and the women, to pretend otherwise.
I am not saying that compliments are evil. But neither would you listen to the same weather forecast a hundred times in a row, wondering if weather forecasts are an absolute good or an absolute evil.
Finally, the filter does not "interpret" anything as anything. It does not know sexy from creepy. But some comments are interpreted as respectful by their authors even if creepy. As if there was a formula for being respectful that does not need to account for the context and the participants. As a general rule, a person, not any single deed or expression, is either respectful or creepy. You rarely see respectful persons doing creepy things, but creepy persons sometimes think they're owed something if they perform a respectful gesture or say a few respectful words.
I've stopped trying.