animeraven34
01-23-2007, 06:22 PM
In the interest of consistent moderation, I've removed the attached image. While I didn't necessarily have a real problem with it (though it was a bit graphic), let's just try and stay away from the overtly violent stuff. I have no doubt people will be able to find other work in their portfolio they'd like to share.

Thanks.

Yeah, you can thank me for that. My story clip that I posted was yanked for being "too graphic" and I protested by pointing out that skynes' pic was allowed (sorry skynes, wasn't my intention to pick on you). Apparently there's no such thing as artistic expression here, unless you get the mods approval. Had I actually been asked, I could have been persuaded to edit the story clip. But as it stands now I won't be editing any of my stories just to post them here, if anyone actually does want to see some of it, then get a hold of me somehow.

smasth_the_tv
01-24-2007, 03:50 AM
the man shutin u down!?
just joshin'...yeah....stuff like that normally happens.....that's why its hard for artist to ever make it big.

Tromos
01-24-2007, 04:51 AM
Yeah! I mean, think of what levels of artistry Charles Manson could have aspired to had the American government not oppressed his artistic rights by tossing his sorry butt in jail! ::]

animeraven34
01-24-2007, 07:22 AM
the man shutin u down!?
just joshin'...yeah....stuff like that normally happens.....that's why its hard for artist to ever make it big.
Bah, I'm not gonna complain anymore, what's done is done and was done in the past.


...am I the only one wondering what Charles Manson has to do with artistic expression?

smasth_the_tv
01-24-2007, 07:43 AM
Bah, I'm not gonna complain anymore, what's done is done and was done in the past.


...am I the only one wondering what Charles Manson has to do with artistic expression?

hope i was'nt soundin harsh.....::] i was kinda waitin for somethin like that 2 happen.....words of wisdom 4 other artists: u really do have to watch what u do display cuz not everyone will understand what ur displaying or have the same viewpoint.::] :P my parents always get after me cuz i draw just about anything and i realize that being a christian there's stuff u gotta watch what ur doing cuz that could be "wrong".;)
:lick:yeah ur not the only one that has no clue that Charles dude has 2 do wit anything......

NightCrawler
01-24-2007, 08:42 AM
In defense of Will's action, I thought it was a bit excessive (regardless of mod-consistency). Skynes, I'm lookin' forward to more of your art.

jade
01-24-2007, 09:31 PM
Yeah, you can thank me for that. My story clip that I posted was yanked for being "too graphic" and I protested by pointing out that skynes' pic was allowed (sorry skynes, wasn't my intention to pick on you). Apparently there's no such thing as artistic expression here, unless you get the mods approval. Had I actually been asked, I could have been persuaded to edit the story clip. But as it stands now I won't be editing any of my stories just to post them here, if anyone actually does want to see some of it, then get a hold of me somehow.

This situation reminds me a lot of getting a drivers license. When I went through drivers ed., one of the things they repeatedly reminded us is that driving is a privilege not a right because so many people think it is a right. The same applies for posting on this message board. Posting really is a privilege. Panheads.org has always been privately owned site and in being that, the people who run the place decide how things are ran. As far back as I can remember Panheads has always been a PG-13ish site and doesn't have any plans of changing. With scope and purpose of this site and the community there are just certain things that are not appropriate. If anyone feels like there is too much "restriction" then you don not have to post as you, Jon, have decided.

I am not a big fan of artistic censorship, but I am a big advocate of things being done in the right place, at the right time, and in the right manner. I honestly don't think even editing your story would make it appropriate for this site. The subject matter was just too much and by the time you got done editing the story it just wouldn't be what it started out as.

In regards to Scott's piece, I personally didn't have too much of an issue with it, but I think action is what sent it over.

All in all, I'm still looking forward to seeing the creativeness the community has to offer.

Tromos
01-25-2007, 06:23 AM
...am I the only one wondering what Charles Manson has to do with artistic expression?

I was just trying to head off the tendency for this conversation to head down the "everything is OK if it's done in the name of art" road.

Unregistered
01-25-2007, 06:42 PM
I honestly don't think even editing your story would make it appropriate for this site. The subject matter was just too much and by the time you got done editing the story it just wouldn't be what it started out as.

What? The subject matter was too much? Right. Basic television has more extreme "subject matter".

alorian
01-26-2007, 08:22 PM
^ is right you know.

Undomiel
01-26-2007, 08:25 PM
2 true...

Tromos
01-27-2007, 10:36 AM
And that's relevant how?

TV has objectionable things every other minute that I wouldn't think we'd want here, yet the argument is that if it's clean enough for TV it's clean enough for here?

???

I'm just happy there is a staff here that's responsible enough to do their job.

alorian
01-29-2007, 08:09 PM
the argument is that if it's clean enough for TV it's clean enough for here?


Panheads has always been a PG-13ish site

Point made? Or need I explain?

fire-inside
02-06-2007, 06:02 AM
Who's place is it to decide for the viewing public what is appropriate and what is not?

Now I missed this story or whatever it was that was posted, so it's kind of hard for me to judge based on that. But as I peruse various threads, I don't see anywhere any sort of guidline for the artistic material presented in this section of the boards. Sure language for general posts is discussed. But I'm fairly sure that artistic expression crosses such general boundaries. Therefore, shouldn't it be stated what is "allowed" and what is not?

It's not plainly stated so it shouldn't be censored. Art is separate of general discussion.

And where is the line going to be drawn? How much is too much? How come a small handful of people get to decide what everyone else is "allowed" to see, hear or read?

First music gets slapped with censors. Then they want to cover naughty bits on a statue. Is there anywhere the power trip doesn't extend?

</soapbox>

Also. Charles Manson was a musician and many well-known bands have used his songs. Having people killed didn't have anything to do with his art.

Tromos
02-06-2007, 08:28 AM
Who's place is it to decide for the viewing public what is appropriate and what is not?

The mods. That's their job.


It's not plainly stated so it shouldn't be censored. Art is separate of general discussion.

It's not plainly stated that we shouldn't show Saddam Hussein dangling from the end of a rope with a black face either, yet I think common sense would indicate that would not be appreciated.



And where is the line going to be drawn? How much is too much? How come a small handful of people get to decide what everyone else is "allowed" to see, hear or read?

Again, because they are the mods. It's their job.


Is there anywhere the power trip doesn't extend?

A number of places. But these aren't public streets. These are private forums. Private, as in, "your freedom of speech rights don't apply here". Private as in "the owners have the legal right to exclude you because you use the letter 'w' too often in your posts."

The arrogance of my fellow Americans never ceases to amaze me. The "you must let me because I can" attitude is unbelievably self-serving and is never about the art or the rights. It's about pride and the unwillingness to submit to authority. Even faced with false accusations and a gruesome death, Jesus submitted to authority - both temporal and eternal. If you desperately feel the need to challenge all authority and common sense, feel free to move the the U.S. 9th district in California. I hear they are challenging that red and yellow make orange this week.


Also. Charles Manson was a musician and many well-known bands have used his songs.

Garbage in, garbage out.



NOTE: The above post is a representation of my personal opinion only. It does not necessarily represent the opinion or the official stance of this site or its staff.

timmyrotter
02-06-2007, 09:07 AM
The mods. That's their job.




It's not plainly stated that we shouldn't show Saddam Hussein dangling from the end of a rope with a black face either, yet I think common sense would indicate that would not be appreciated.





Again, because they are the mods. It's their job.




A number of places. But these aren't public streets. These are private forums. Private, as in, "your freedom of speech rights don't apply here". Private as in "the owners have the legal right to exclude you because you use the letter 'w' too often in your posts."

The arrogance of my fellow Americans never ceases to amaze me. The "you must let me because I can" attitude is unbelievably self-serving and is never about the art or the rights. It's about pride and the unwillingness to submit to authority. Even faced with false accusations and a gruesome death, Jesus submitted to authority - both temporal and eternal. If you desperately feel the need to challenge all authority and common sense, feel free to move the the U.S. 9th district in California. I hear they are challenging that red and yellow make orange this week.




Garbage in, garbage out.



NOTE: The above post is a representation of my personal opinion only. It does not necessarily represent the opinion or the official stance of this site or its staff.


it is at the Mods discretion, but that doesnt make it right or wrong neccesarily, you know?

and this is more of a grey area than saddams execution being displayed on the boards, so this anology doesnt work.

timmyrotter
02-06-2007, 09:16 AM
although technically Rachel the boards are, despite the fact he isnt on here anymore, ran by Will. his rules... but needless to say this is an art section, and creativity, expression etc. are important part of art. and this coming from me, someone who is the least creative, non-artistic person in the world. i do find censorship at this degree wrong, but certainly not surprising.

Tromos FYI Rachel is one of the devlopers of these boards, and an Ex mod... so if that adds any credibility to what she is saying...

animeraven34
02-06-2007, 09:28 AM
Who's place is it to decide for the viewing public what is appropriate and what is not?

Now I missed this story or whatever it was that was posted, so it's kind of hard for me to judge based on that. But as I peruse various threads, I don't see anywhere any sort of guidline for the artistic material presented in this section of the boards. Sure language for general posts is discussed. But I'm fairly sure that artistic expression crosses such general boundaries. Therefore, shouldn't it be stated what is "allowed" and what is not?

It's not plainly stated so it shouldn't be censored. Art is separate of general discussion.

And where is the line going to be drawn? How much is too much? How come a small handful of people get to decide what everyone else is "allowed" to see, hear or read?

First music gets slapped with censors. Then they want to cover naughty bits on a statue. Is there anywhere the power trip doesn't extend?

</soapbox>
Thank you!

I renew my offer to share the story clip in question with anyone who wants to see it.

will
02-06-2007, 11:59 AM
Who's place is it to decide for the viewing public what is appropriate and what is not?As Tromos said, it is in fact our place as the moderators of this site to decide what content we allow to be posted. Let me emphasize however, that I'm not trying to push an idea of what art should be allowed for public consumption at large, only within this confined (and as Tromos pointed out, private) community. This is no different than if I owned a brick and mortar art gallery -- I own the building, so I can freely choose which artists I want to display in my gallery. That's not to say that other artists aren't any good, in fact I might really like their work... but it just may not be appropriate for the target audience of this particular gallery I've set up.

Now I missed this story or whatever it was that was posted, so it's kind of hard for me to judge based on that. But as I peruse various threads, I don't see anywhere any sort of guidline for the artistic material presented in this section of the boards. Sure language for general posts is discussed. But I'm fairly sure that artistic expression crosses such general boundaries. Therefore, shouldn't it be stated what is "allowed" and what is not?

It's not plainly stated so it shouldn't be censored. Art is separate of general discussion.Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like you are saying that perhaps art posts should be exempt from some of the rules we have elsewhere on the boards (such as language). Unfortunately, we're just going to have to disagree on that point, because I do not see justification for an exemption. That being said, we (the mods) are even trying to figure out amongst ourselves what we want to allow. We will see about trying to more explicitly define what is allowed, but in the meantime it may be prudent to simply not post anything that might be questionable.

And where is the line going to be drawn? How much is too much? How come a small handful of people get to decide what everyone else is "allowed" to see, hear or read?We're not deciding what anyone is allowed to see or read; rather we're deciding what people are allowed to post. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. I'm no one's parent or clergyman... I don't get to decide what is appropriate for anyone to consume, nor do I want to. I (and the other mods) DO however get to (and have a responsibility to) decide what is consumed here on this site, and this is done by limiting what is allowed to be posted.

First music gets slapped with censors. Then they want to cover naughty bits on a statue. Is there anywhere the power trip doesn't extend?Sounds like you're talking about government censorship here, which is quite a different matter.

I renew my offer to share the story clip in question with anyone who wants to see it.And this is a completely appropriate means of sharing any work that isn't quite appropriate for this community... through individual communication off-site. I would never dream of trying to limit what anyone on the boards does or shares off-site.

timmyrotter
02-06-2007, 02:21 PM
i read the story... i stand somewhat corrected, at least with this piece. Cursing isnt allowed on a lot of Forums. so i wouldnt expect it to be allowed on one with christian leadership. sure id like for us to all be adults and accept and discuss some adult subject matter, but a good chunk of PH.org is made up of people under 18... like i said its a grey area, and an arguement that will not likely ever be settled.

fire-inside
02-06-2007, 11:57 PM
My comments did not necessarily require a rebuttal - from anyone. I know why Will does what he does. As well as the other moderators. I don't really need to be told all about it. Because I do have a very solid understanding of the way Panheads.org and these message boards are run. Do not forget that, as Timmy pointed out, I was one of three who helped develop this place, including these boards. I was a moderator for a couple years, from the inception to the merge with AY.com.

So all that said.. Will, you know I don't need you to explain why you do things the way you do. I have a pretty solid grasp on it. I know the way you want things around here to be. I doubt it's changed much from when we were BFFE to now. And while I probably came off sounding like these ideas are ludicrious, I do understand why such things need to be in place in a community such as this one: Largely religious people, largely under-age.

Like it's been said before, this is a grey area that falls somewhere in between "What do you allow" and "Let them use their own discretion."

Tromos
02-07-2007, 04:53 PM
wwnnnttddtthhhttt.....

*sigh*

*removes virtual foot from virtual mouth*

Darn it. I hate it when I do that. :-\

Regardless of my stance on this, I wanted to apologize to Rachel. My comments the other day were fairly spiteful and did not come across lovingly at all. Clearly my boxers were in some sort of a bunch. :o

Add to that the knowledge that you have been around forever and do know the history here (as opposed to me, the idiot) and have been a mod. I'm an admin at a couple of other sites so I deal with this sort of thing on occasion. Had I known your history here, I certainly would not have posted such a condescending message. But regardless of your history, you deserved more respect than that because you are a child of God. I humbly ask for your forgiveness and for the forgiveness of anyone else I offended with my poorly-thought-out words.

Perhaps I'm just to left-brained to appreciate any creativity that doesn't have practical value. I have no appreciation for art for the sake of art. *shrug* Sorry.

will
02-07-2007, 11:20 PM
My comments did not necessarily require a rebuttal - from anyone. I know why Will does what he does. As well as the other moderators. I don't really need to be told all about it. Because I do have a very solid understanding of the way Panheads.org and these message boards are run.You know I would have thought that too, but your previous post certainly speaks to the contrary. Either you don't know/remember, in which case I've explained it; you were simply playing the devil's advocate, in which case there's no need to get upset when people post a rebuttal; or perhaps you want to play both sides, where you get to criticize the moderators and the choices they make, but then claim immunity when anyone disagrees because you "helped develop this place". You're right, you did do a lot around here, but that was a long time ago (3 years? 4 years?) and still doesn't excuse this kind of behavior.

... or perhaps I misread one or both of your posts and I'm way off, in which case both Tromos's and my post should still be helpful to others confused about why we do things the way we do.


I humbly ask for your forgiveness and for the forgiveness of anyone else I offended with my poorly-thought-out words.While I certainly appreciate your humility you have absolutely nothing to apologize for... you were spot-on with that post.

Garth
02-07-2007, 11:32 PM
This is a privately owned website, but is it not the official message boards of the band? I thought it was publically linked from the main site, skillet.org? Hmmm... interesting thought. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

will
02-07-2007, 11:39 PM
This is a privately owned website, but is it not the official message boards of the band? I thought it was publically linked from the main site, skillet.org? Hmmm... interesting thought. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

yep, that's pretty much accurate. The band does have ultimate control over the site, but they've never really expressed any interest in doing anything with it other than what we've done all along.

Tromos
02-08-2007, 06:07 AM
While I certainly appreciate your humility you have absolutely nothing to apologize for... you were spot-on with that post.

The words perhaps, Will, but not the attitude.

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."

Whether this site officially represents the band or not, it certainly represents God and we should treat each other with respect in all things, especially when we disagree.

Quadripedman
02-08-2007, 01:45 PM
The words perhaps, Will, but not the attitude.

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."

Whether this site officially represents the band or not, it certainly represents God and we should treat each other with respect in all things, especially when we disagree.

okay, thats settled, argument over, who wants cookies?

(hands out virtual cookies [the good kind, not the kind that ka-zap your computer])

fire-inside
02-10-2007, 01:15 AM
First and foremost: Tromos, while I thank you very deeply for your apology - it was not necessary. You did not offend me in the least. This is one of those topics that can get people pretty heated, and there will always be people who stand on the polar opposites of one another. That's why they're so entertaining to discuss. But still, I thank you again for that. But mostly, I thank you for making me feel as though my history here actually means something.

However. Mr. Norris, I don't understand why you have to be so condescending. Three years? Four years? Big deal. I'd probably still be helping any way I could if I'd been given the option. And also, I wasn't the least bit upset about receiving rebuttals. I was simply pointing out that I didn't need things explained away to me, and explained why.


Alllll that aside. I read the story piece and, while I enjoyed it a great deal, I can agree that it probably wasn't appropriate for the general census around here. So I think perhaps to avoid such a thing in the future, a little expansion on the general guidelines to include artistic freedom would do us all well.

I Bite
03-01-2007, 01:30 PM
sure id like for us to all be adults and accept and discuss some adult subject matter, but a good chunk of PH.org is made up of people under 18...

I really dislike it when people decide what I can or cannot take because of my age. Yes, I'm younger than 18. It is not as if I have never heard "bad" words in my life. While the idea of "we'll not let this and this be allowed because there's children here" is...nice (I guess), I dislike it a lot. Simply because I'm under 18 does not mean I cannot converse like a mature person. Yes, I can be silly and stupid, but (I'm pretty sure) so can the rest of you. I am perfectly capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with an adult. To say that I cannot handle a conversation like an adult simply because I am under 18 is incorrect.

alorian
03-01-2007, 04:34 PM
I actually think you're much more capable of mature conversation than many 18+'s out there Stephani.

timmyrotter
03-02-2007, 07:31 AM
I really dislike it when people decide what I can or cannot take because of my age. Yes, I'm younger than 18. It is not as if I have never heard "bad" words in my life. While the idea of "we'll not let this and this be allowed because there's children here" is...nice (I guess), I dislike it a lot. Simply because I'm under 18 does not mean I cannot converse like a mature person. Yes, I can be silly and stupid, but (I'm pretty sure) so can the rest of you. I am perfectly capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with an adult. To say that I cannot handle a conversation like an adult simply because I am under 18 is incorrect.

the age of course varies from person to person. and whether one is capable of mature conversing, doesnt mean they do. they are just more likely to as they get older. i though this went without saying. but my generalization is pretty accurate.

I Bite
03-02-2007, 12:11 PM
I still disagree with you, and i could go on for quite some time about how, but I'm fairly certian I will never change your mind, and I know that you won't change mine, so I'm gonna stop arguing with you now..

No hard feelings?

btw, thanks Seth.

unshakeable15
03-03-2007, 10:48 PM
It's not about whether or not you are able to converse in a mature manner. That varies from person to person. My uncle, who's older than anyone else in the house, is pretty incapable of having a mature conversation. i know a Freshman who, when she was in jr. high, was more mature than many of the now graduated Seniors.

Yet, as one who is older on the boards, as well as one in a position of authority, it is up to me (and anyone else who falls under one or both of those) to protect those younger from the dirty aspects of life. "Protect," not "exclude" or "deny" but "protect," as in "even if you experience every kind of cuss word imaginable at school, we will not allow you to experience that here."

It's not in any way meant to be condescending. To say that another way, there is no aspect of this concept that is meant to look down upon you or others because of your age; none. In fact, compared to the rest of the world (especially when you take my appearance, not my age), i am myself young. Having experienced being looked down upon because of my age (and the rest of the mods having experienced that as well, i'm sure), why would i want to continue that trend?

Just because you may be more mature does not mean others your age are. We have to draw a line somewhere, and as such, someone will always be left on the wrong side. Better someone left on the safer side than someone left on the less safe side.

Besides, a lot of the things this rule is "protecting" you (the general, plural "you") from are also protecting me! i don't want to read or see this stuff either!