tobyb - A woman in a bikini depicts or implies a sexual act? Hardly. And I did not find Jack's comments to be flippant. We'll agree to disagree there.

akil_x - Ah, I saw your comments on my clarification thread, but was unable to respond since I was banned. Let me just point out the simple fact that you have apparently missed here. That is, the pictures that were in my original threads in my private team were NOT nude. They were in bikinis and underwear. Like I said in my clarification thread, you can see that on the beach. Therefore, I sincerely doubt that I tainted or distorted anyone's mind. Furthermore, the threads were in my private team and did not offend anyone on my team.

Shensta - Actually, Jack, who is a man of high calibre, is correct in putting this back on Asta, in my opinion.

The general feeling that my banning caused when I opened a rule clarification thread is that the individual member's opinions and questions do not matter. From what I see and how I personally feel, asking for THAT to be proven wrong is a given.

adbit - We are not a family, We are members of a forum. As for knowing what nudity is, I think that's the point. People's definition of nudity differs. However, I haven't met anyone who thinks a women in a bikini is nude. That is what started this issue. Since it was my threads deleted and my banishment, I strongly feel the need for a clearly defined rule. In regards minors on the forum, I would assume that everyone on an underground forum is of legal age. In the end, it's a parent's responsibility to filter what a minor sees, whether it's on the internet, the tv, and so on. However, as I have said before, my threads with pictures of women in bikinis and underwear were on my closed team. I carefully screen my members as much as one can considering we're all anonymous internet surfers. Still, in the end, if you have watched a music video, read a magazine, paid attention to a tv commercial, seen a PG movie, or hit the beach, you would have seen women in bikinis and/or underwear.

This whole situation has been unfair to me. I really liked Asta and frequently posted here. As a matter of fact, I was the #6 poster here before I was banned. Although I'm not perfect in any way, I have always tried to follow forum rules and be an active member. After having several of my comments, posts, and threads disappear without notice or explanation, I finally spoke up. That happened to be on the two threads that contained pictures of women in bikinis and underwear. In the end, I was banned. To say that I've been deeply disappointed by all of this would be an understatement.

Gravedigger, here's what I'd define nudity and porn as:

Nudity is "the state of wearing no clothing."
"Pornography or porn is the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer. Pornography makes no claim to artistic merit, unlike erotica, which does."

Therefore, I'd say any depiction of nudity where the person(s) are engaged in a sexual act for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer that has no claim to artistic merit should not be posted.

@ bnoble, I think you are still feeling strokes of ban. In previous thread too I requested not to make it matter of prestige, same request here. We have never raised finger on your posting ability. So forget these.
Your suggested definition is not complete.
Pls tell me in which category will you keep two persons in lip lock state ?
People (Male/Female) partially showing their private organs?
There are many more such,
And while you are saying, it's duty of parents what childrens are viewing, it seem you are trying to ran away from your responsiblity.
You might think whatever for Asta
but for us it's Family.

bnoble said:

..I haven't met anyone who thinks a women in a bikini is nude...

dear bnoble, first welcome to asta.

second, please forget about the ban and its cause if possible as no body had any mala fide intention behind it.

so I would like to request you to please forget the past and enjoy the present and future dear.

and yes, A woman in bikini does not come under the category of nudity. but a woman having bare breasts or bare pubis spot or bare buttocks fall under the category of nudity no matter who is that and no matter what it tells the story. ( but here I would like say that it is intention which counts much so it should not be mala fide)

And you well said on porn.

I hope you will agree with me.

thanks and regards to all for the valuable comments and discussion.

have a nice day.

@Shensta I thought I was pretty clear and that I'd made several suggestions. Whatever you may imagine, I'm not waiting for anything because in this situation my expectations have been low and met. I asked a number of questions which remain unanswered and made a number of suggestions which would solve a lot. We'll see if Asta will evolve or implode. But since so many people have taken affront at my frontal lobe (which was mentioned with undetected irony) and since anything over about 50 words is apparently ignored, I'll boil it down into bullet points:

* Tolerating intolerance is vile. Pretending that intolerance is justified does not make it so.

* Mods are no less responsible for maintaining and respecting the rules than the members. Mods must respect users if users are to respect mods. It is not "correct" to persecute a member or a team (or even a mod) using vague rules as a smokescreen.

* Private teams should be private and policed equally. All members of groups with 18+ content should be (and are) screened for age and respect of Asta rules. The idea of protecting adults from something that respects the site rules that they've asked for permission to see is idiotic.

* A thread asking for clarification or pointing out the pursuit of a juvenile vendetta (as Yrale rightly points "borderline stalking") should be cause for careful investigation, not cause for immediate banning or reprimand.

* We are participating in an underground site with zero pornographic content. To my knowledge nothing pornographic has been posted by anyone participating in this thread, so it is a nonissue. And to say that LadyCandy was following the rules is completely inaccurate. The real issue is consistency and context.

* Rules should be enforced consistently. Abuse or misuse of rules by members or mods should be handled with logic and responsibility. People should be held responsible for their actions.

* A definition of nudity or obscenity will prove much useless without a basic system of discipline with regard to inappropriate behavior from anyone. We can cobble together infinte definitons, but what's the point if that definition is applied irregularly at whim without repercussion?

* If a bikini can be used as a mod's avatar, it is schizophrenic for that mod to be ruthlessly deleting threads and banning folks for posting pictures of people in bikinis. LadyCandy did not act "correctly" in any sense of that word in her handling of this situation.

* The apology indicated here on every one of these points is due to Bnoble who has acted with patience and maturity given zero encouragement to do so. That this apology remains unoffered is shocking.

In fact in all this, Bnoble is the person who acted "correctly." I understand that this is Gravedigger's site but in using the word "correct" he is himself incorrect. The events in no way support his interpretation of LadyCandy's behavior.

It is all well and good for people to waggle words like "Family" and "community" around in a forum, but in the absence of respectful treatment and consistent behavior neither of those things is remotely viable. In fact, in the absence of some basic protections, online communities inevitably devour themselves and expire in petty squabbles and juvenile posturing.

My suggestion (which I've made twice already) remains that some basic checks and balances be implemented to protect users and mods from misuse and abuse of the rules... That the rules themselves be clarified so that they reflect Gravedigger's wishes for Asta... That if material that bothers someone IS posted, Gravedigger implement a system of address to handle it with some kind of adult logic... That questions about those rules and there enforcement be handled openly and consistently and intelligently. The trouble is, those aren't particularly earth-shattering ideas in my book. The idea of having to "suggest" them boggles the mind. Does anyone reading any of this thread actually believe that there is some other way to handle the situation? Does anyone believe that the facts suggest another interpretation? Brushing all this aside serves neither the site nor common sense.

So Shensta, when you throw down the putative gauntlet and demand ideas of me which are so manifestly unnecessary, all I can think is that again, everyone is afraid to speak frankly for fear of irrational reprisal and that ideas are exactly what no one wants. Debating a definition of obscenity without a system of order to apply it is an empty and useless distraction; if anyone doesn't believe me they don't read enough history.

The course of action seems clear to me, but then again, I'm only a user. You don't want or need ideas from me. My further input is completely unnecessary. Some apologies to Bnoble are more than justified. Some hard examination of the mod activity in a few private teams is long overdue. A public clarification of administrative policy on some of these i__TEXT IS TOO BIG. IT WAS TRUNCATED TO 5000 SYMBOLS

@bodmas - I don't understand how we can have this discussion without the issue of the banishment. When that was the punishment for what is being discussed. No disrespect, but are you serious?

reader40 said:

@bodmas - I don't understand how we can have this discussion without the issue of the banishment. When that was the punishment for what is being discussed. No disrespect, but are you serious?

dear for that banishment I am extremely sorry and really apologize to you all especially bnoble who had to suffer. I am also sending an apologize PM to bnoble.

we all make mistakes if you suppose we should ignore it then we also expect from you that you should also ignore it. we all love asta and we should always think better for the asta.

As I earlier assured you and once again assure you all that this won't happen in future. we love bnoble and can't ignore her reputation and contribution to asta.

think that the ban was just a mistake on our parts and we expect you all to please ignore it and forget it for better asta.

have a nice day.

Bodmas, why are you apologizing for something you did not do? Am I wrong? Isn't the entire issue of nudity/obscenity we're discussing related to LadyCandy's interpretation of the rules and her misuse of her authority?

I won't discuss the banishment. But with regard to the issue of defining obscenity, I can't believe that after three early posts crowing about Gravedigger having solved everything by explaining nothing, LadyCandy hasn't actually offered anything by way of explanation as to HER definition of nudity/obscenity. And since it is HER definition and HER misapplication of the site rules which created this mess, it seems like that would be a good starting point, since the obvious chasm between her perceptions and Gravedigger's are the source of the problem.

I feel like Bnoble's definition is perfectly useful : "explicit depictions of the sexual act; nudity portrayed for the purposes of titillation; any sexualized depictions of anyone under the age of maturity."

So now that that's done, how does that definition factor when anyone can apply or not apply that definition idiosyncratically? What will Asta do if someone posts a Renoir with erotic overtones... or a racy cartoon? The answer is, just as you do now: on a case by case basis. Hopefully with some degree of consistent supervision by the administration.

Bit of a drama here, I could read this and weep nearly! Come on folks just forget about this small matter as there are things going on in this world that matter so much more. It is a very well mannered "slagging match" with the medical conditions mentioned above. If u are going to tear your your hair out over a little ban then u soon will be bald. peace.

JackSweat said:

Bodmas, why are you apologizing for something you did not do?

dear, we are community, a strong community. when I first time entered into this asta I found that every one is so interactive towards each other with love, affection and feelings. i was so impressed as each one was supporting to each other.

I am just maintaining this at here. What I got in past, just I am giving here.

hope you understand me.

You know dear, many had accused us that asta do not have community at all but with the issue of bnoble you all have showed that asta have a very very strong community. Is not it right? i think its 100% right.

have a nice day dear.

@bodmas- again no disrespect was intended.

Now we are asked to discuss punishment behind closed door? I would think it better for Asta to air out it's dirty laundry. After all every family has dirty laundry.

reader40 said:

@bodmas- again no disrespect was intended.

Now we are asked to discuss punishment behind closed door? I would think it better for Asta to air out it's dirty laundry. After all every family has dirty laundry.

your query is at right place dear but I think a perfect solution at present has already been suggested by our admin Gravedigger which I am quoting as it is here "

GraveDigger said:

What I can offer for as a solution in this case is a warn button.
Every Release/Request/Thred will have a button for mods "Warn"
then if mods sees that member posted somth that is ion the thin border between allowed and disallowed then just press warn and user will get warning in his PM stating exact R/R/T and member will have to reply what actions/corrections were done.
Anyway if member is a good contributor why to ban him without warning on the first mistake?

Now, to prevent similar cases on the basis in future - let`s discuss once and forever what we call porn and nudity. Then we will correct the rules and this definition will go there as a part of the document!

PS: I am sorry dear but you took my PM idea in the wrong direction hence I have snipped that PM line. I did not mean that at all.

thanks and regards.

dear bodmas,

what we have showed is that we feel a strong community within our team. everyone has been helpful and friendly, courteous and supportive; i am starting to make some real friends there (which is still a far cry from "family"; i take that term very seriously). i talk with around 30-40 people almost every day, and most of us are prolific posters, among the most prolific ones on this site.

outside of my team most users seem nice enough, and you in specific seem very friendly. so friendly that you want us all to just get along, you want us to ignore clear injustices for the sake of peace. but true peace does not come about by sweeping bad behaviour under the rug. it comes about through accountability and mutual respect.

i think you represent asta well as a moderator. i've seen you calmly explain to people when they made a mistake, and you correct their posts; you don't just randomly delete things without notice, and you don't ban people when they're just seeking clarification. you seem to have a really good sense what the rules are meant to prevent, what behaviour needs the big ban hammer, and what just needs a nudge in the right direction. you behave like a caretaker, like a guide -- that's what i expect from a good moderator.

which is why that apology does not count. it isn't yours to make. you did nothing wrong; you have tried to help us. but the person who did something wrong has not apologized, has not said "this won't happen again", has not shown any insight into what went wrong, has not even been reprimanded. so your assurance doesn't count either. i dont trust asta anymore.

ladycandy has not been friendly at all. from the first day i came here i've seen her be rude, capricious, unwilling to explain, intolerant, ruling over minor infractions or mere misunderstandings with an iron fist, and finally being purely vindictive by banning boble (which wasn't the first ban that had to be reversed either). there is nothing community-minded and family-like in the way she has behaved towards members of my team -- and in general on the romantic fiction public board. the banishment wasn't an unfortunate accident; it was malicious, and meant to last. and no, we can't just forget that. the guilty party has not even admitted to it. that's not how apologies work.

how could any of us see this site as family, with this sort of treatment lorded over us? how could we believe assurances that it'll be all better now when she's still right there, with gravedigger saying she was "correct"? she wasn't correct. i am not posting anything right now in romantic fiction because who knows when she'll be "correct" about banning me for something completely above-board, now that i've come out publicly about her behaviour. i half expect to get banned soon, with the slightest excuse, for participating in this very thread. but as i said before, i don't stand still for injustice.

bnoble said:

tobyb - A woman in a bikini depicts or implies a sexual act? Hardly. And I did not find Jack's comments to be flippant. We'll agree to disagree there.

I don't want to start an argument, but this is quite an irrelevent comment, neither of the definitions suggested by GD and myself would suggest that a bikini should be against the rules, and I am therefore under the impression that you are again looking at your original post, you have been unbanned, so the mods and admins have agreed that you should not have been banned, and under the new rules, you, and all other members of astatalk, should never be banned again, but under the original rules the images you posted were inappropriate, and ladycandy was right to act as she did. It would have been better to PM a mod or admin first to explain your disapproval, or even just linking to the images offsite with a disclaimer, then at worst you would probably have been asked to remove them. You had already been shown that these images were inappropriate, why repost them?
We all seem to have missed the point of this thread, to create a definition together that as a community we accept and are prepared to follow.

Bnoble`s IP was banned too, I undanned it. No problems should be now at all.

Please read again my post:
I proposed you all a DRAFT! Feel free to provide your corrrection and your full version of definition.

@JackSweat
you missed a key word "naked" as toby noticed.
According to MY definition breast in bikini or underwear is allowed.
btw, I had one more idea (if you all support me). We could allow posting official cover of a ebook release regardless if it violates our future definition.

how about this:

15. The following will not be tolerated: visual pornography (sexually explicit images), full frontal nudity, partial nudity exposing the genitalia, any and all exploitative nudity of children, threats of violence against any person, posts instigating criminal activity, posts disparaging other members' race, gender, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation. Users violating this rule will be reprimanded and might be banned for a serious first offense, so think carefully on what you're about to post. Any doubts? Ask a moderator for advice first.

i remain firm in my conviction that moderator attitude has to be respectful and give the benefit of the doubt to any poster who's not outrageously breaking the rules in clear defiance. you need clear guidelines, but an iron fist only for people who are recalcitrant after having been warned.

will sounds fare......thats the asta way....

posts instigating criminal activity,

Ummm, Pleo, you might want to revise this sentence given the context of Asta!

Otherwise, I think this is excellent.

I have one suggestion to add, not specifically directed towards this rule, but banning in general. Can Asta institute a rule or procedure whereby a banned member has the right to appeal his/her ban to the Administration directly? When bnoble was banned she had no access to this site, Admin. or any of the mods. If Ladycandy's announcement that she had banned bnoble had not sparked vocal protest in other members, bnoble would still be banned today and it's unlikely that Gravedigger and other administration would even know about it. This, along with the "warning" system Gravedigger spoke about, should help put a stop to individual mods abusing their powers and acting in a manner inconsistant with Administration's desires and guidelines.

i am fairly new here but i have read this post and the discussion following it. as far as i see it, there is a serious problem in not having a warning before banning a member for whatever reasons. that is simply arbitrary and disrespectful (even though it seems the moderator was following forum rules literally.) i am sure that it does not harm the forum for warning the member about the supposed action that may cause a ban. secondly, as far as the discussion on nudity and posting rules are concerned, i find pleochroic's attempt fair. gravedigger's suggestion of a 'warn' button is welcome and finally the very thought of censoring releases for their cover images is frankly ridiculous. that would be carrying this entire thing too far.

I also want to talk about Tobyb's comment above about appropriate and inappropriate images being uploaded by bnoble. two women in bikinis - it in fact could be on one of the covers of the books that one posts here. as long as pornographic material is not being exchanged on forums/teams, a simple warning, or pm should suffice. and let that warning be posted for the team also for information.

Gravedigger, thank you for trying to calm the flames!

madaboutbooks said:

I also want to talk about Tobyb's comment above about appropriate and inappropriate images being uploaded by bnoble. two women in bikinis - it in fact could be on one of the covers of the books that one posts here.

To quote myself:

neither of the definitions suggested by GD and myself would suggest that a bikini should be against the rules

I have no problem of images with bikinis being posted but most of the images bnoble posted showed a little more skin

Well, to let you all know that there is already a system by which admins will always know who got banned as soon as any of the admins will log in after the ban on users. banner always has to give reason and justification on banishment act.

but your suggestion are really appreciable and are most welcomed. those are really worth of taking into consideration.

further, i have also noticed that some of the members (???) are trying to create confusion out of trifles. those are kindly requested to please hold on themselves. hope those have got my point clearly. if you love asta then you should not do this at all. please make asta a better community.

have a nice day.

kab1111 said:

posts instigating criminal activity,

Ummm, Pleo, you might want to revise this sentence given the context of Asta!

hey, i worked with the orginal rule and just rewrote it to be more clear. this is the silly cover-your-butt clause that all warez sites use, thinking it'll spare them from prosecution, because they didn't officially endorse the stuff we're all here for. if that only worked, but hey... i'm not their lawyer.

what they mean is "posts instigating any criminal activity other than filesharing and hacking and cracking", but i don't think anyone really wants to say that explicitly.

Okay - I have taken a few days off before coming back to Asta - and I am a little confused with something. Perhaps I am reading this wrong.

Gravedigger said -

btw, I had one more idea (if you all support me). We could allow posting official cover of a ebook release regardless if it violates our future definition.

Am I to understand that, as long as it's a offical book cover, it is alright to break rule #15?

No disrespect -- but I don't get it.

To say we can't post tasteful and artistic pictures of naked, no genitalia showing (such as a couple holding each other in a side shot) because it is considered porn if there is no clothes - YET it's okay to post bookcovers with more exposure, less tasteful - borderline pornographic content just because they are 'offical'?

Hmmm. Me thinks this is extremly duplicitous =(meaning double dealing, two faced or talking out of both sides of your mouth).

I see that you are trying to work things that would make both sides happy.

But...

If you are going to stick with rule 15 as is -- then it should be that way FOR ALL photos posted on ASTA... including threads, bookcovers, avatars, albumn covers, game covers - etc.

I would rather see NO PICTURES what so ever on this site, than to see the censorship - prejudice/bigitory stance you have suggested for rule 15.

And just for the record - I don't know how you can throw nudity in with porno and the other sleeze mentioned in rule 15. And I guess it would be alright to post photos of beastiality verses nudity of the human body?

I speak only for myself here.

Ryan Bartlett, USA

I also wanted to address - in a separate post - I do applaud the warning button.

Now please correct me if I am wrong. If I (as a poster) post something that in the eyes of a Mod - has broken a rule - I get a warning, with the reason/rule broken?

Am I given time to correct the situation (or given a chance to explain) - or does my thread simply disappear with no explaination from the mod?

Or is this warning button only for the sever cases of doing something that would make me immediately banned, if I didn't take care of it?

I can tell you, as a member, it is EXTREMELY FUSTRATING to have a thread deleted with no explaination.

I am NOT a trouble maker or a rebel rouser. I am, however, rather new to the underground, and want to know WHY a thread of mine was deleated or WHAT rule I did break in order to learn from my mistake and not conciously do it again.

I understand that I have the responsibility to follow the rules.

If I have broken one, is it not the responsiblity of the mod to inform me of what I have done wrong?

How is anyone to learn from their mistakes if Mods continue to delete threads (or even graveyard them if it's in a private forum and it was a discussion thread) left and right without an explanation?

Since this has happened numerous times to myself as well as other members -- and it is apart of what is going on with the current debacle, I would like to see this problem addressed.

Thanking you in advance,

Ryan Bartlett, USA

I think the idea is that the warning button is for cases wheren a full ban is a bit extreme, but a rule has been broken that would originally have entailed a ban.

How is anyone to learn from their mistakes if Mods continue to delete threads (or even graveyard them if it's in a private forum and it was a discussion thread) left and right without an explanation?

Most mods will give a reason for editing a thread or closing it, when threads get deleted it's usually pretty obvious to the poster why, usually bad language or the content mentioned here. If you'rereally not sure just PM a mod, they are always happy to reply if you ask them.

tobyb121 said

I have no problem of images with bikinis being posted but most of the images bnoble posted showed a little more skin

But less than what is depicted on covers, cover art way more explict. Thus the need for clarification.

Shensta said

suggestion for rule 15 revision: 15. Porn, sexually explicit nudity, childish nudity are not tolerated and not accepted !! (Asta contains some nudity user discretion/caution is advised, a +18 should and is used for some adult material, if in any way you find this material to be offensive you should report it and it will be deleted.

So if I understand this correctly the following would be ok: bnoble original post of pictures, covers & ladycandy original avatar are all ok. Unless someone finds it offensive and reports it. At which point the mod deletes and (my suggestion)pm offender. I use the above example as point of reference only for this discussion.

@reader40: I agree the images on many covers are quite explicit, and I thik it is wrong to justify these in the rules, I think it would be better to allow cover images etc. to be liked offsite with a warning they conatin explicit content, but any other explicit content has no place here.