Nudity issue

It is so fucking ridiculous.... One of my pic was deleted because it shows a gir's ass... I mean, come on! It is not pornographic and it is the only poster available for this movie. Any pornflick may have a poster has long as the girls are not naked. Check these pics yourself :


(no allowed)


(allowed)


Isn't it ridiculous?! The first pic may be nude but it is really harmless The second pic may not be nude but definitely belongs to an adult website and not here. Guys, please get your priorities straight. Instead of deleting hamrless nude pics, go delete the millions of softcore pics on this website.

Another point, some mainstream movies show some nudity on their poster so you have to be a little bit flexible concerning those rules... I can also show you thousands of paintings with nudity displayed and they shouldn't be deleted either because it is Art and not pornography... We are not some children and I think you can make the difference and my dear moderators, if you still want to get rid off those, fine, but first go clean up all those sleazy soft-core pics, and you may delete the harmless and artistic pics.

Welcome to the club. It seems that decisions about nudity around here are arbitrary to a certain extent. There are soooo many pictures of thongs and thong shots that are truly tasteless. A little bare ass, especially where it's an artistic and/or candid shot, should be acceptable.

Like this:

I agree, a lot.

Johan, when i was moderator, i would have deleted your picture. simply because it is "full nudity". the one that burnodo posted as well. the girl in the bra and thong on the other hand, although it is "suggestive" i wouldn't have deleted.

the whole discussion about nudity is now starting for the, i don't know, 20th time? please just accept the fact that there is only a handful of moderators, who don't really have the time to consider the pros and cons of literally tens of thousands of suspicious pictures. it is mostly a gut decision, and a quick one.

so unless Tom writes some kind of script which detects the percentage of bare skin on any picture, i'd strongly suggest to just accept "error" in that regard as a matter of fact. if you _really_ think you _need_ a certain picture (for a list etc.), and it is, fom your point of not nudity, then contact one of the moderators or Tom (@Tom: has the notification for a picture being deleted adapted now so that you see who deleted it?) directly.

@Bael, fair point but like you pointed, 'if you really need a certain picture', for the concerned movie, there is only this poster (of variations of it) so it should be left alone.

sure, this is always a possibility. my point is that you should rather contact the staff directly instead of restarting a general discussion (which we, how you very well know, had ad nauseam on Listal) about nudity (and it's criteria).

I agree that I would be good if exceptions could be made for images like this but unfortunately I believe it would lead to even more confusion and subjectivity with the rules. How exactly do you define what is tasteless and what is not?

The image above is clearly against the image rules. All rules like this are going to be flawed and have some interpretation to them but I've tried to make them as clear as possible.

Just because an image is on listal doesn't mean its allowed under the rules.

I noticed also that a poster for that movie doesn't exist on imdb, probably for the same reason it's not allowed on here.

There is no way for a moderator to know that it's the only image for a movie. We can only follow the rules that are laid out for us and delete images that we find to be considered nudity. There is absolutely no way you can argue that the chick isn't nude. She's naked. If an image is reported as nudity and the person is nude that's pretty much all there is to it. As Tom said we can't allow this image and then not allow others. Sorry!

I understand those rules but, in my opinion, it would be better to drop the whole nudity thing and focus on what is tasteless. It would be left to the judgment of the moderators. Is the pic nude? Ok, then it has a good chance to get deleted but not necessarily. Is the pic tasteless, nude or not? It should be then definitely deleted. Eventually, it is up to the moderators but they shouldn't obsess about the nudity and think about what hurts the website the most. Imagine a 6 year old child surfing on this website, would you prefer that he/she bumped into the 1st pic or the 2nd one? That's as simple as that.

nudity is clearly defined (=no clothes). tastelessness on the other hand is not. everyone has his own definition. endless discussions would occur.

No, there is no endless discussion needed. We have to trust the moderators who should use their common sense instead of strictly following the rules. Eventually, it is up to them.

We try to do both:

- Sexually explicit poses
- Images with extreme focus on body parts

For the above reasons we've deleted the second image, and the user who posted it *has* had his/her library deleted over the course the past twelve months.

Those pornstar images aren't really useful to the site - in Tom's words, "Huge image galleries of glamor or adult models is not really the purpose of this site."

Just to put it in numbers, four million plus (whoa.) images have been posted to Listal, and that's a great big lot to keep track of. Mods will discuss banning members themselves if they're consistent in posting sexually explicit images; after one or two bans, they usually get banned permanently. These buggers are passionate about what they do, however, and come back in alternate accounts (some more obvious than others) which also get banned.

Nudity *is* nudity, of course.

P.S. Bael, why'd you leave us in tears at the train station? You're always welcome back.

Nudity is NOT nudity. I've had "hand bras" and "arm bras" pictures deleted where other such images have not been deleted. There are see throughs of models that get deleted and others that don't get deleted. There are models that are not wearing underwear that are not deleted, and others that are. There are artistic nudes or strategic placement nudes that are deleted and others that are considered ok. It really does seem that nudity is not well defined.

@burnodo:

Just to put it in numbers, four million plus (whoa.) images have been posted to Listal, and that's a great big lot to keep track of.

i want to repeat this again (and again, and again...):

1. there are only a handful of moderators.
2. out of the millions, there are 6 digit potentially rule-breaking pictures
3. only few are reported by other users, so mods would have to actively find those pictures
4. technically, deleting those pictures in bulk is not possible (unless Tom changed something)

now do the math.

also, please people, if you want to hear the pros and cons just search for nudity in the forums and you will find dozens of such threads.

@PK: you don't need me ;). also, i'd suggest to close this thread.