English is not my native language, so I apologize for my mistake
Often, when someone uploads a photo that shows nothing of muscles, use an excuse like this: ” this photo A of the girl XXXXX shows nothing of muscles, but this photo B of the girl XXXXX yes shows them, so the girl XXXXX has muscles, therefore the photo A should come into GWM”
This argument (excuse) makes no sense. For one simple reason: in moderation we are forced to vote each photo, one by one, in isolation. It is logical, if allowed to accept the photo A only because it is the model XXXXX, obviously many photos that violate the rules would enter, and GWM would be an authentic chaos.
It is implicit in every rule to be applied in all individual cases for which it was created.
That was what I thought. However, this comment thread tells me otherwise:
Left me worried that a moderator make a comment like this publically. This implies that administrators are wasting our time to me and to all users, to force us to say YES or NO dozens of times in moderation, when in fact the photos could automatically enter.
One could argue that, in reality, the moderation system is designed for the rule of watermarks, for the problems of copyright. But this is nonsense, because on a site that tries to gather public domain photos of girls with muscles, the implicit rule that the photo should show muscles is equally important as the other.
Cinderella is an excellent model, has great photos, but that does not justify the photo above.
This kind of “parasitic photos" are a serious problem in GWM, because undermine their sense of being. The reason for having a place of photos of girls, specializing in muscular girls, is to save us the trouble of having to search through thousands of photos that do not interest us. If we want that GWM works, whether we like it or not, we have to choose which pictures they enter and which are not. Photos must meet the requirements of GWM, not the other way around. And obviously, it must be so with each of the photos.
Log in |
Register
Often, when someone uploads a photo that shows nothing of muscles, use an excuse like this: ” this photo A of the girl XXXXX shows nothing of muscles, but this photo B of the girl XXXXX yes shows them, so the girl XXXXX has muscles, therefore the photo A should come into GWM”
This argument (excuse) makes no sense. For one simple reason: in moderation we are forced to vote each photo, one by one, in isolation. It is logical, if allowed to accept the photo A only because it is the model XXXXX, obviously many photos that violate the rules would enter, and GWM would be an authentic chaos.
It is implicit in every rule to be applied in all individual cases for which it was created.
That was what I thought. However, this comment thread tells me otherwise:
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.php?imgid=690634
Left me worried that a moderator make a comment like this publically. This implies that administrators are wasting our time to me and to all users, to force us to say YES or NO dozens of times in moderation, when in fact the photos could automatically enter.
One could argue that, in reality, the moderation system is designed for the rule of watermarks, for the problems of copyright. But this is nonsense, because on a site that tries to gather public domain photos of girls with muscles, the implicit rule that the photo should show muscles is equally important as the other.
Cinderella is an excellent model, has great photos, but that does not justify the photo above.
This kind of “parasitic photos" are a serious problem in GWM, because undermine their sense of being. The reason for having a place of photos of girls, specializing in muscular girls, is to save us the trouble of having to search through thousands of photos that do not interest us. If we want that GWM works, whether we like it or not, we have to choose which pictures they enter and which are not. Photos must meet the requirements of GWM, not the other way around. And obviously, it must be so with each of the photos.