These images:
*Images Removed*
In my view are not appropriate on a public forum.

My reasons are that we should not encourage self-harm, and also that children view this website. I think those images should be removed from the forum, and that pro-self harm content is considered not allowed, or at least not allowed outside of Area 69. This would not just be images, but would include discussion as well, eg. pro-anorexia, if the discussion is deemed to be pro-self harm (encouraging people to actually self-harm).

Keen to know what you think.

-A

From memory, I think we do frown upon threads like those, and have locked down proponents of self harm in the past too. It's hardly something we actively encourage, and of course if you find them inappropriate then the best thing you could do is use that report button, Aractus.

As for the images, it'd be no great tragedy to lose them, but I'll wait for some more of the mods to weigh in on that one.

Well you can consider the OP to be my formal request that the images are removed should they be deemed by the mods to be inappropriate, by all means discuss it first.

I will state keep the pictures in order to make your decision easier.

It is easier, after all, to go against the decision of someone like me than to follow someone else's suggestion.

You are welcome.

I can imagine a number of circumstances where images of this nature might be an appropriate aid to discussion without there being any suggestion of 'endorsement' by site owners or contributors however the topic is serious and verges on 'adult nature'. I don't know if an '18' certificate (e.g. Area 69) would be appropriate because it's often younger people who are most vulnerable to the types of causes which result in self harm.

I therefore would back a move to regulate such content via the site rules with the following high-level requirements:

- Any 'such content' should be hidden and given appropriate labels to advise readers of the nature of the content
- Mods can modify, hide or take down images, 'if appropriate' to the situation
- Mods can issue warnings 'if appropriate' for the posting of 'such content'
- Mods can ban members 'if appropriate' for the posting of 'such content'
- Mods can consider members' management of 'such content' when deliberating on their general conduct

Items in quotes would need detailed definition but I'm of the opinion that the existing rules cover all these requirements. Maybe some explicit mention in the rules would help, maybe alongside some specific examples/screenshots of what's expected so that conduct is clearly signposted.

I wish this was an adult oriented site with a kiddy corner for those underage.

I don't think anyone on staff wants images like that around Aractus. Personally I'd be happy to delete every trace of that asshole but the kind of work and disruption that would cause simply isn't viable.

Echoing what Esq said, the best way to let staff know about images like this is to use the report button, try as we might we can't monitor the activities of every single person on here, every single minute.

Also, I've removed them for now but we've got the original post backed up in case other staff members disagree with removing them. I highly doubt they will though.

(May 1, 2014 at 8:58 am)Napoléon Wrote: Echoing what Esq said, the best way to let staff know about images like this is to use the report button, try as we might we can't monitor the activities of every single person on here, every single minute.

True, however they are in a thread that would have been seen by many mods before I saw them (after all they were quoted a number of times too), and it's also quite a serious matter. I know some parents that have rifles and would be horrified if their child saw those kinds of images. I also knew a kid (primary school age) - this is going back 20 years or so - that took some bullets from home and then threw them against a wall with some friends of his - one of them ended up in hospital after shrapnel (or something) spat into his eye. It was quite the news story in Canberra that week too.

(May 1, 2014 at 9:11 am)Aractus Wrote: True, however they are in a thread that would have been seen by many mods before I saw them (after all they were quoted a number of times too), and it's also quite a serious matter.

Well I for one didn't see them. You have to bare in mind it's posted in a thread with 800 pages, often times looking back through that thread is not something I am personally inclined to do, and considering no other mods posted around the time, I don't think any other mods did in fact see those images.

At the end of the day if there's anything members have a problem with content wise, the best thing to do is use the report button. That way all mods get to see it and have input on it. We're not infallible and we can't look at every post made on this site. I know we bang on about it, but using the report button really is the best way to let us know about things like this.

Would the similar picture of Derek Schlessinger be inappropriate in a discussion regarding his moms public advocacy of Biblical precepts in parenting ??