Motion Passed: Allow Images in Omni and Omni P/R
May 24, 2011, 2:29 pm
#31
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,611
But an image like this is not inappropriate by FT rules:
However, if, when I'm reading a thread about a hot celebrity, I really don't want it to become a thread about who can find the hottest picture of her.
And I agree, that not all images will be of people. But, I still think the negatives are bigger than the positives in this proposal. Trying to say the mods will be able to deal with this is both brushing off the concerns raised and is incorrect, since there is no TOS breach with the image I have just posted (or I would not have posted it).
However, it doesn't take much to create an atmosphere which is intimidating or unwelcoming, and I do think that this proposal risks creating a forum where sections of our community will feel intimidated.
However, if, when I'm reading a thread about a hot celebrity, I really don't want it to become a thread about who can find the hottest picture of her.
And I agree, that not all images will be of people. But, I still think the negatives are bigger than the positives in this proposal. Trying to say the mods will be able to deal with this is both brushing off the concerns raised and is incorrect, since there is no TOS breach with the image I have just posted (or I would not have posted it).
However, it doesn't take much to create an atmosphere which is intimidating or unwelcoming, and I do think that this proposal risks creating a forum where sections of our community will feel intimidated.
Which could easily be in, say, the Womens Travel forum without problem or comment.
But let me be frank: if I want to look at semi-clad (or unclad) women on the internet, there are FAR better places to do that than FT. @:-)
So really, I do not expect Omni to be overrun with misogynistic objectification of women despite what others fear. Rather I think images would become a useful tool in sharing knowledge, wit and experiences. ^
As I say, why not at least give it a shot, keep an eye on it, and see what happens!^
May 24, 2011, 2:42 pm
#32
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I am no longer sure it is like that. A growing number of FTers falsely identify the sex of FTers who are female. [And it's not just because some female FTers will admit to choosing to use FT handles that "sound 'masculine'" so as to not have to deal with being "chased" or what not.]
Last edited by GUWonder; May 24, 2011 at 3:07 pm
May 24, 2011, 2:58 pm
#33
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
No. I'd see the same image in People Magazine or any of the entertainment programs on TV here in the evening.
As long as they're not in one, single post, no. If a poster came on and posts 30 images to start a thread off in one, single post, no matter what the photo is, I'd suggest they have a lot of free time on their hands to piece something like that together. It takes me forever to write up trip reports and insert photos.
Talk Board has not elected to put a restriction such as that in place in the current vote. Milepoint, just to use them as an example, has a limit of 5 images per post. Perhaps Talk Board can ask the FT Tech folks to turn on that setting here, if it exists, so someone doesn't post 30 images in a single post, and pick some magical number of photos allowed per post (say 2-3 to start off). Or, we can just wait and see if someone actually does post 30.
No more than seeing members of the Catholic Church, LDS, or various political figures bashed on OMNI/PR. There are always going to be members uncomfortable wading into that side of FT. It comes with the territory.
If the photos can appear in People Magazine, I'm fine with them in OMNI.
If they're more likely to be in magazine whose sole purpose is to display naked people, I can see your concern. I would not want those photos here, and I doubt the moderators would allow them.
If you look at what appears in People Magazine, though, or any of the tabloid publication available at the supermarket check-out stand, I don't have an issue with them being here.
Do you consider 30 such images in a thread inappropriate?
Talk Board has not elected to put a restriction such as that in place in the current vote. Milepoint, just to use them as an example, has a limit of 5 images per post. Perhaps Talk Board can ask the FT Tech folks to turn on that setting here, if it exists, so someone doesn't post 30 images in a single post, and pick some magical number of photos allowed per post (say 2-3 to start off). Or, we can just wait and see if someone actually does post 30.
Do you think that some women (and possibly some men) will find threads full of images such as that unwelcoming and intimidating?
If the photos can appear in People Magazine, I'm fine with them in OMNI.
How would you see moderators handling images like this, bearing in mind that some women really do not want to be faced with drooling threads in a forum where upto now they've felt quite comfortable and welcome?
If you look at what appears in People Magazine, though, or any of the tabloid publication available at the supermarket check-out stand, I don't have an issue with them being here.
May 24, 2011, 3:51 pm
#34
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Home
Programs: AA, Delta, UA & thanks to FTers for my PC Gold!
Posts: 7,676
Words make no impact nor effect on people until they are read. One can choose to skip, skim, or ignore content based on say thread title, topics, or user names. That we all know.
Images, on the other hand, work differently from words. Images deliver from the second you have "eye contact." Meaning unlike words, one can't skim or ignore a picture. Once you see a picture, that picture stays with you, like it or not. Even MODs intervene and remove (offending) pictures later on, what's done is done.
Unlike other fora on FT, OMNI & /PR don't have a mile/point/travel theme to tie with the images. The range of topics are, well, unlimited and beyond imagination.
Such a wide range of latitude can turn images into "lethal weapons" very easily. Currently using words only in /PR, we've seen enough blood, eh, saliva wars.
I can only imagine images as future WMDs in /PR, if this motion passes.
With due respect, would you be able to give me some good example threads in both OMNI and /PR, that could use images as a tool of sharing knowledge, wit and experiences? And what useful images would that be? I am really having a hard time coming up with some convincing examples.
Images, on the other hand, work differently from words. Images deliver from the second you have "eye contact." Meaning unlike words, one can't skim or ignore a picture. Once you see a picture, that picture stays with you, like it or not. Even MODs intervene and remove (offending) pictures later on, what's done is done.
Unlike other fora on FT, OMNI & /PR don't have a mile/point/travel theme to tie with the images. The range of topics are, well, unlimited and beyond imagination.
Such a wide range of latitude can turn images into "lethal weapons" very easily. Currently using words only in /PR, we've seen enough blood, eh, saliva wars.
I can only imagine images as future WMDs in /PR, if this motion passes. With due respect, would you be able to give me some good example threads in both OMNI and /PR, that could use images as a tool of sharing knowledge, wit and experiences? And what useful images would that be? I am really having a hard time coming up with some convincing examples.
May 24, 2011, 4:27 pm
#35
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,611
With due respect, would you be able to give me some good example threads in both OMNI and /PR, that could use images as a tool of sharing knowledge, wit and experiences? And what useful images would that be? I am really having a hard time coming up with some convincing examples.
May 24, 2011, 6:17 pm
#36
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,110
No. I'd see the same image in People Magazine or any of the entertainment programs on TV here in the evening.
As long as they're not in one, single post, no. If a poster came on and posts 30 images to start a thread off in one, single post, no matter what the photo is, I'd suggest they have a lot of free time on their hands to piece something like that together. It takes me forever to write up trip reports and insert photos.
Talk Board has not elected to put a restriction such as that in place in the current vote. Milepoint, just to use them as an example, has a limit of 5 images per post. Perhaps Talk Board can ask the FT Tech folks to turn on that setting here, if it exists, so someone doesn't post 30 images in a single post, and pick some magical number of photos allowed per post (say 2-3 to start off). Or, we can just wait and see if someone actually does post 30.
No more than seeing members of the Catholic Church, LDS, or various political figures bashed on OMNI/PR. There are always going to be members uncomfortable wading into that side of FT. It comes with the territory.
If the photos can appear in People Magazine, I'm fine with them in OMNI.
If they're more likely to be in magazine whose sole purpose is to display naked people, I can see your concern. I would not want those photos here, and I doubt the moderators would allow them.
If you look at what appears in People Magazine, though, or any of the tabloid publication available at the supermarket check-out stand, I don't have an issue with them being here.
As long as they're not in one, single post, no. If a poster came on and posts 30 images to start a thread off in one, single post, no matter what the photo is, I'd suggest they have a lot of free time on their hands to piece something like that together. It takes me forever to write up trip reports and insert photos.
Talk Board has not elected to put a restriction such as that in place in the current vote. Milepoint, just to use them as an example, has a limit of 5 images per post. Perhaps Talk Board can ask the FT Tech folks to turn on that setting here, if it exists, so someone doesn't post 30 images in a single post, and pick some magical number of photos allowed per post (say 2-3 to start off). Or, we can just wait and see if someone actually does post 30.
No more than seeing members of the Catholic Church, LDS, or various political figures bashed on OMNI/PR. There are always going to be members uncomfortable wading into that side of FT. It comes with the territory.
If the photos can appear in People Magazine, I'm fine with them in OMNI.
If they're more likely to be in magazine whose sole purpose is to display naked people, I can see your concern. I would not want those photos here, and I doubt the moderators would allow them.
If you look at what appears in People Magazine, though, or any of the tabloid publication available at the supermarket check-out stand, I don't have an issue with them being here.
With due respect, would you be able to give me some good example threads in both OMNI and /PR, that could use images as a tool of sharing knowledge, wit and experiences? And what useful images would that be? I am really having a hard time coming up with some convincing examples.
And as tom911 said up thread, "Just looking on the front page of OMNI this morning, I see a few threads where photos could be useful. For example, threads on a championship tennis match, eyewear, the NBA and NHL, could all be enhanced with photos. The long running Costco thread on the second page could be enhanced by photos of the products FTers are purchasing and raving about."
BTW - I'm a bit confused (and think it's sexist
) to imply that all images being posted if this passes will be of male/females - and that only males will post. Why assume women wouldn't do so. Big assumption. Plus I don't think this is going to be a big free for all. Maybe I'm oversimplying, but maybe others are overanticipating.Re: not safe for work argument. Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. Ask your employers if they're ok w/ you surfing FT at all while working.
Just sayin...FWIW - I haven't decided one way or the other on this. I am looking for new input, not just the same few repeating their stances over & over. And hopefully once the public announcement happens we'll get that. Having said that, the poll went on for a month & got about 110 votes & even the previous thread didn't get that much extra input other than some people again reiterating their stances.
And finally - no I don't think the Halle Berry photo is inappropriate, porn, etc. The only thing that pisses me off about it is a reminder that I'm not in that shape & bikini season is upon us.
Cheers.
May 24, 2011, 6:42 pm
#37
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
BTW - I'm a bit confused (and think it's sexist ) to imply that all images being posted if this passes will be of male/females - and that only males will post. Why assume women wouldn't do so. Big assumption. Plus I don't think this is going to be a big free for all. Maybe I'm oversimplying, but maybe others are overanticipating.
Originally Posted by Jenbel
And I agree, that not all images will be of people.
If you think it's fine to put images of scantily clad women everywhere, then please feel free to explain why most workplaces do not allow them to be stuck up on walls anymore?
And talking of workplaces:
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
Re: not safe for work argument. Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. Ask your employers if they're ok w/ you surfing FT at all while working.
Finally, so we think we should be able to post images from tabloids found in supermarkets...
You do know that the tabloid newspapers with a nude page 3 are sold in supermarkets? I'll include a link, but won't post it because it really isn't work suitable! You have been warned. {LINK REMOVED BY MODERATOR - NSFW} I can open up most British tabloids and find an image like that on the page 3 of many of them. If you are trying to set standards of decency (which of course have already been defined by the mods), then you need to remember to use a frame of reference which is understood internationally. The American Mods got a bit of a shock on one occasion to discover that having 'PG' as the standard for the board, European Mods would use the definition for PG from their own country, which included the kind of nudity shown in the link above and so we had to change the standard from PG (as everyone applied PG as it applied in their own country) to 'generally not suitable for work'.
I definitely don't want those kind of images in OMNI thank you. While I think FT can be at times unnecessarily prudish, there is no reason to be posting that kind of thing in OMNI.
I know there was a demand to have a men's forum a wee while back... but if you are going to create one, you could at least do it honestly, and not just by altering OMNI to make it a place which many women will find uncomfortable to hang out
Last edited by Moderator2; May 24, 2011 at 8:40 pm
May 24, 2011, 6:50 pm
#38
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
Where has anyone done this?
If you are going to be voting on the issue, is it possible you could read the arguments being made, and not just skim them please? I wouldn't have thought I'd need to spell this out - but the issue is not that every single photo will be inappropriate. The issue is that there are some threads which will become metaphorical locker rooms.
If you think it's fine to put images of scantily clad women everywhere, then please feel free to explain why most workplaces do not allow them to be stuck up on walls anymore?
And talking of workplaces:
It's really not your call to tell the membership if their employers think their surfing habits are fine or not - that's between them and their employers, and you are not here to protect members' employers from their employees illicitly browsing. However, I would find it odd if the members raised accessibility concerns about a new policy that was being considered and those concerns were brushed aside by a TB member - who is meant to represent them and their best interests on FT -because that TB member didn't think they should actually be accessing FT.
Finally, so we think we should be able to post images from tabloids found in supermarkets...
You do know that the tabloid newspapers with a nude page 3 are sold in supermarkets? I'll include a link, but won't post it because it really isn't work suitable! You have been warned. {LINK REMOVED BY MODERATOR - NSFW} I can open up most British tabloids and find an image like that on the page 3 of many of them. If you are trying to set standards of decency (which of course have already been defined by the mods), then you need to remember to use a frame of reference which is understood internationally. The American Mods got a bit of a shock on one occasion to discover that having 'PG' as the standard for the board, European Mods would use the definition for PG from their own country, which included the kind of nudity shown in the link above and so we had to change the standard from PG (as everyone applied PG as it applied in their own country) to 'generally not suitable for work'.
I definitely don't want those kind of images in OMNI thank you. While I think FT can be at times unnecessarily prudish, there is no reason to be posting that kind of thing in OMNI.
I know there was a demand to have a men's forum a wee while back... but if you are going to create one, you could at least do it honestly, and not just by altering OMNI to make it a place which many women will find uncomfortable to hang out
If you are going to be voting on the issue, is it possible you could read the arguments being made, and not just skim them please? I wouldn't have thought I'd need to spell this out - but the issue is not that every single photo will be inappropriate. The issue is that there are some threads which will become metaphorical locker rooms.
If you think it's fine to put images of scantily clad women everywhere, then please feel free to explain why most workplaces do not allow them to be stuck up on walls anymore?
And talking of workplaces:
It's really not your call to tell the membership if their employers think their surfing habits are fine or not - that's between them and their employers, and you are not here to protect members' employers from their employees illicitly browsing. However, I would find it odd if the members raised accessibility concerns about a new policy that was being considered and those concerns were brushed aside by a TB member - who is meant to represent them and their best interests on FT -because that TB member didn't think they should actually be accessing FT.
Finally, so we think we should be able to post images from tabloids found in supermarkets...
You do know that the tabloid newspapers with a nude page 3 are sold in supermarkets? I'll include a link, but won't post it because it really isn't work suitable! You have been warned. {LINK REMOVED BY MODERATOR - NSFW} I can open up most British tabloids and find an image like that on the page 3 of many of them. If you are trying to set standards of decency (which of course have already been defined by the mods), then you need to remember to use a frame of reference which is understood internationally. The American Mods got a bit of a shock on one occasion to discover that having 'PG' as the standard for the board, European Mods would use the definition for PG from their own country, which included the kind of nudity shown in the link above and so we had to change the standard from PG (as everyone applied PG as it applied in their own country) to 'generally not suitable for work'.
I definitely don't want those kind of images in OMNI thank you. While I think FT can be at times unnecessarily prudish, there is no reason to be posting that kind of thing in OMNI.
I know there was a demand to have a men's forum a wee while back... but if you are going to create one, you could at least do it honestly, and not just by altering OMNI to make it a place which many women will find uncomfortable to hang out
Individuals who post offensive material or links to such will be subject to disciplinary action.
Ironic that you chose to preemptively accuse a whole sex of abusing a feature while in the same post you break the board rules.
Last edited by Moderator2; May 24, 2011 at 8:40 pm
May 24, 2011, 7:19 pm
#39
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,110
I've said that I'm willing to listen to all FTers & I am & have & will continue to do so, so certainly don't get the brushing aside others comment.
If some repeat the same arguments over & over then I count their vote/take their input into consideration, but unless they've presented new info to back up their stance then I just go w/ what they've said & I've read, but don't necessarily assign extra points one way or the other (pro/con) for the repeating over & over & over of the same statements.
I could care less if someone reads FT at work. Their employers might (and some probably would). That's between them & their employers. But the NSFW argument re: images isn't going to get much play w/ me. As mentioned before, I don't see Omni turning into porn central.
And it goes w/o saying that even if I don't agree w/ particular FTers thoughts it doesn't mean I'm not representing FTers.
FT is a huge community & each have dif thoughts on particular topics, as evidenced in this thread & many others. Just sayin...
Cheers.
If some repeat the same arguments over & over then I count their vote/take their input into consideration, but unless they've presented new info to back up their stance then I just go w/ what they've said & I've read, but don't necessarily assign extra points one way or the other (pro/con) for the repeating over & over & over of the same statements.
I could care less if someone reads FT at work. Their employers might (and some probably would). That's between them & their employers. But the NSFW argument re: images isn't going to get much play w/ me. As mentioned before, I don't see Omni turning into porn central.
And it goes w/o saying that even if I don't agree w/ particular FTers thoughts it doesn't mean I'm not representing FTers.
FT is a huge community & each have dif thoughts on particular topics, as evidenced in this thread & many others. Just sayin...Cheers.
Last edited by SkiAdcock; May 24, 2011 at 7:26 pm Reason: clarified a couple of things...
May 24, 2011, 7:48 pm
#40
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
American Idol 2011 - photos of whoever is participating and their outfits and public appearances
Who loves Costco? - photos of newly introduced products or existing products that FTers love
2011 MLB Thread - photos of players and winning plays and fans (it would not be San Francisco Giants 24/7)
2010 NHL Season - photos of the San Jose Sharks and their fans
The Amazing Race: Australia - photos of teams FTers have ran into about Australia and locations they have competed
Who loves Costco? - photos of newly introduced products or existing products that FTers love
2011 MLB Thread - photos of players and winning plays and fans (it would not be San Francisco Giants 24/7)
2010 NHL Season - photos of the San Jose Sharks and their fans
The Amazing Race: Australia - photos of teams FTers have ran into about Australia and locations they have competed
If Talk Board voted against the current motion based on your views, could you return here and support photos in some other manner that members would find useful, such as in the categories I mentioned above?
May 24, 2011, 8:03 pm
#41
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Liberty International...
Programs: OMNI Platinum
Posts: 9,721
Why not allow images in ONMNI with then option of individual user being allowed to ignore photos which they considered to be an issue with the all mighty bandwidth or whatever else.. If you can already ignore members, you might as well be allowed to ignore images if that’s what you want.
I say make OMNI at par with the rest of FT and allow images with the option of disabling it.
Also, if you are going to post provocative photos at least amend the rules to warn members of posting such images with perhaps a thread starter of NSFW or something to that extent
EDIT: Didn't know there was an option already to disable photos.. I only caught this when I browsed this thread logged off and I see two photos at top of the page..
Now that an option to allow/disable images is there, it more of a reason to allows photos imo
I say make OMNI at par with the rest of FT and allow images with the option of disabling it.
Also, if you are going to post provocative photos at least amend the rules to warn members of posting such images with perhaps a thread starter of NSFW or something to that extent
EDIT: Didn't know there was an option already to disable photos.. I only caught this when I browsed this thread logged off and I see two photos at top of the page..
Now that an option to allow/disable images is there, it more of a reason to allows photos imo
Last edited by ewrfox; May 24, 2011 at 8:46 pm
May 24, 2011, 8:13 pm
#42
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Up til today I'd formed no opinion on the matter. After reading this thread I find myself leaning slightly in favor images. If it becomes a moderation nightmare we'll know soon enough.
May 24, 2011, 8:15 pm
#43
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
^ and agreed. More bandwidth, and distractions from opinions. No would be my suggestion.
Thanks for the heads-up, tom911.
I'd encourage a NO vote on this proposal.
One of the things I enjoy about OMNI and P/R is the ability to READ people's opinions and discuss them intelligently, without being subjected to kitten pictures, silly Photoshopped images, and other material with minimal information value. One can already post links to images, if relevant to the topic at hand.
I'd encourage a NO vote on this proposal.
One of the things I enjoy about OMNI and P/R is the ability to READ people's opinions and discuss them intelligently, without being subjected to kitten pictures, silly Photoshopped images, and other material with minimal information value. One can already post links to images, if relevant to the topic at hand.
May 24, 2011, 8:31 pm
#44
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Either at the shooting range or anywhere good beer can be found...
Posts: 51,050
My employer does not block FT, but sites on which one would find photos like what Jenbel posted earlier are usually blocked. I'd take that to mean that they deal with my FT visits, but do not want employees visiting sites with photos of women in bikinis.
May 24, 2011, 9:46 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,326
You probably know that you cannot allowed to post an inappropriate pictures. Only where you can do post another pictures and not a fancy things. Its against the TOS rules and you could be violations of forums rules. It will result bans from FTs for 30 days.