How can a poster know what will be deemed as pornography?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Netiquette

H. Netiquette
Civility
1. Members should abide by basic standards of good manners and courtesy when addressing other members. If another member insults you, do not return fire; report the offending post.

2. Do not use ALL CAPS in posts – this is SHOUTING. Similarly, use of oversized or coloured text to emphasise your posts will be frowned upon. You are encouraged to use italic and bold text for emphasis (but not for entire posts).

3. If you post a thread, expect people to reply to it. Bear in mind that the thread is on a public forum and all members are free to contribute to it; you may not place restrictions on who may respond. (The only exception to this is threads in the Formal Debates subforum, which has its own rules.)

Referring to other members
4. Refer to other members by their chosen screen names. The deliberate alteration of a member’s name to insult or demean him or her is unacceptable.

5. Comments about other forum members that are derogatory, overtly sexual or which constitute harassment are unacceptable.

Interpersonal arguments
6. Personality clashes between members occasionally occur and are unavoidable. It is the responsibility of the members involved to manage their differences in a civil manner. Often, the simplest way to do that is to avoid engaging in discussions with the person concerned.

7. Sciforums specifically invites discussion of religion, politics and (to some extent) sex. Members should be aware of the potential for these topics, in particular, to become inflammatory and combative. Engage in such discussions with care!

8. Do not engage in flame wars with other members. The argument that ‘He insulted me first’ is unlikely to help you if a moderator has to step in.
Click to expand...

Now those cover the rules for posting on the Forums. "5. Comments about other forum members that are derogatory, overtly sexual or which constitute harassment are unacceptable."

So what does overtly mean?

Trooper said to wegs once words to the effect "everyone wants to get into your pants" so was that overtly sexual, (and I think you were part of that conversation too), but nothing was done about it. I wouldn't have a clue how to find that post using the Search" function, but if we searched Trooper's posts it might come up.

Rule 7 is interesting for it says "7. Sciforums specifically invites discussion of religion, politics and (to some extent) sex..." So it isn't strictly a science forum as people often say.
 
rob,
if you were my employee and you hit on a married woman the way you hit on bells i would fire you.
the reason would be sexual harassment.

the very fact that it is plain this sort of stuff is not really welcome here should say a lot about what your true motives are,
 
leopold said:
rob,
if you were my employee and you hit on a married woman the way you hit on bells i would fire you.
the reason would be sexual harassment.

the very fact that it is plain this sort of stuff is not really welcome here should say a lot about what your true motives are,
Click to expand...

Are you implying you have read our PMs.?

Well I don't work for you so it is a silly example, and if you did do that, I'm sure you'd have to defend a charge of wrongful dismissal.

How do you know who is married or not? There was a suggestion that we shouldn't even know the gender of the members!

Now that you think you know my true motives tell the forum.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Are you saying you have read our PMs. Well I don't work for you so it is a silly example. How do you know who is married or not. There was a suggestion that we shouldn't even know the gender of the members!
Click to expand...

I construe a very selective memory.
 
At this point, we're only feeding the troll. My suggestion is for the forum to ignore this assclown and wait for James to do the right thing and bounce his creepy ass for good.
 
Trippy said:
II would have thought the answer was fairly obvious. A good starting point might be "Is this something I might share with a complete stranger on the street."

Because you know what? In spite of any personal boundary issues you might have, that is effectively what we are to you.
Click to expand...
And do you guys treat me with the same degree of respect? I have yet to see it!
 
Robittybob1 said:
I suggested we should and someone else suggested the opposite.
Oh there are many more PMs to read if that is what you mean.
Click to expand...



You've pretty much lost every argument you can make by allowing Bells to post a PM from you that mentions the Life on Mercury thread. It documents your character quite well.

No Rob. No one wants to see how many lies you can make. You've made so many already you don't know where you've put them.

Thanks.
 
Balerion said:
Not having an eject button for obvious cases like Rob is really annoying. The administration owes it to its members to lose dipshits like him the second they make their intentions known. He posts porn, he stalks and sexually harasses members, and we put him through the warning-ban cycle? Really? This guy is a cancer. Kick him out of the clubhouse already.
Click to expand...
What your clubhouse?
 
Beer w/Straw said:
You've pretty much lost every argument you can make by allowing Bells to post a PM from you that mentions the Life on Mercury thread. It documents your character quite well.

No Rob. No one wants to see how many lies you can make. You've made so many already you don't know where you've put them.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen on Sciforums. You wait until you have to argue against Balerion then you'll know you've met a match.
But he shoots from the hip and didn't have the evidence under his belt. He is defeated this time.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Are you implying you have read our PMs.?

Well I don't work for you so it is a silly example, and if you did do that, I'm sure you'd have to defend a charge of wrongful dismissal.

How do you know who is married or not? There was a suggestion that we shouldn't even know the gender of the members!

Now that you think you know my true motives tell the forum.
Click to expand...
I posted our PM's. You have nowhere to hide. You also can stop lying and trying to infer that I somehow invited it.

In my response to you, I decidedly told you to stop posting that crap on this site as it was not acceptable. You response was to tell me what turns you on and then ask me whether it turned me on.

Your country has a very good definition of sexual harassment:

Sexual harassment is covered by both the Employment Relations Act and the Human Rights Act (section 62). Part 9 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 provides a definition of sexual harassment. The definition and various other provisions relating to sexual harassment are contained in sections 103, 109 and 117.

Sexual harassment can include:

personally sexually offensive verbal comments;
sexual or smutty jokes;
repeated comments or teasing about someone's alleged sexual activities or private life;
persistent, unwelcome social invitations, telephone calls or emails from workmates at work or at home;
following someone home from work;
offensive hand or body gestures;
unwelcome physical contact - e.g. patting, pinching, touching or putting an arm around another person's body;
provocative visual material - e.g. posters of a sexual nature;
hints or promises of preferential treatment in exchange for sex, or threats of differential treatment if sexual activity is not offered; and
sexual assault and/or rape.
​



Lets see..

I tell you that you can't post this stuff on this site. I explain to you why. I tell you it is not welcomed and not acceptable.

You respond by telling me what sexually arouses you and then you ask me if I get turned on by it.

And even after how many pages of my telling you that it's not acceptable, you still don't get it and you actually respond with:

Where did you get that from?

Can you show me how you came to that preposterous conclusion, that I sexual harassed you? That to me seems so over the top I just about can't believe I'm reading it. But if you think it is true show me, for it definitely would be the last thing on my mind to upset or harass you Bells.

Sexual Harassment is quite a serious charge and I would think of leaving the forum if that really was the case.
Is flirtatious behaviour sexual harassment? No! don't be silly.

Maybe we need to made a new thread and put up all our PM communication in there and see if it stacks up?
That might be a bit scary for me at least. I agree to it, but it will need your agreement also.
Click to expand...
You are a perverted troll.

I posted the PM's you sent me and my response, in this thread. Have you seen anyone agree with you in this thread?

Anyone at all?

No. Because everyone here is flabbergasted that you just don't get it and we are all seeing the extent of your perverted nature and your dishonesty.

Sexual harassment is a very serious charge. You deliberately choose to not understand or get the fact that what you constitute as flirting is sexual harassment. It was unwanted and remains unwanted. I had told you before why your comments were unacceptable. You sexually harassed many people on this site and you have stalked at least one that we know of. It was so bad for her, she had to cancel her PM's and you were banned. And you didn't learn your lesson. Instead of improving, you got worse.

Do the Forum Rules cover sexual harassment? How can you say the above things? There doesn't seem to be any natural logic to it.
Like if James was to vet it himself how can that have any affect on you? I read what you've just written and I feel a degree of compassion, you seem to be losing control, it seems irrational, so I am worried for you.


What part don't I understand? Well how did you come to know the combined decision of all the moderators? Was it a PM from each of them? If so forward them to me please.

Well It seems to be different from your's that's for sure. I will see what the site rules says and we'll go from there.

Prove to me who "we" is? I know one of the "we" is you. You've made that plain.


It won't be moderators it will be "a moderator".
Click to expand...
Do you think we don't talk to each other?

I am 100% certain that no one here wants to read about your sexual dreams or sexual fantasies.

I would say the 100% negative response from everyone who has responded here should be a good enough sample of what this moderator thinks of your sexual harassment and your threats to continue sexually harassing "a moderator" with documents explaining your sexual dreams.

It isn't wanted.

This has been said to you repeatedly.

Your persistence and your continued threats to send such material to "a moderator" is sexual harassment.
 
Robittybob1 said:
I suggested we should and someone else suggested the opposite.
Oh there are many more PMs to read if that is what you mean.
Click to expand...
Stop right there.

Trying to infer or slyly imply that I somehow flirted with you or gave any hint to you that this was invited is dishonest and an outright lie. It was the complete opposite.

God you're pathetic and disgusting.

As my colleagues can attest. One of my biggest complaints of late is because you kept spamming me with PM's that I was sometimes forced to respond to and how much I thought you were a pervert and a creep.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Well that could be true.
Click to expand...
There's no "could be" true about it.

Robittybob1 said:
I believe I followed that rule and examination of the PMs will either show it or not.
Click to expand...

Bells beat me to it (only because I was at work), but according to s62 of the Human Rights Act 1993:

It shall be unlawful for any person (in the course of that person's involvement in any of the areas to which this subsection is applied by subsection (3)) by the use of language (whether written or spoken) of a sexual nature, or of visual material of a sexual nature, or by physical behaviour of a sexual nature, to subject any other person to behaviour that—

· (a) is unwelcome or offensive to that person (whether or not that is conveyed to the first-mentioned person); and

· (b) is either repeated, or of such a significant nature, that it has a detrimental effect on that person in respect of any of the areas

So it doesn't even have to happen more than once to constitute sexual harrasement.
 
Oh, and Rob, do you really think, rpenner, banned you because your thread was "not scientific," or did it have something to do with the post I made in it?

If I really wanted to I could PM James, I guess.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
Oh, and Rob, do you really think, rpenner, banned you because your thread was "not scientific," or did it have something to do with the post I made in it?

If I really wanted to I could PM James, I guess.
Click to expand...
I do not not know why rpenner banned me on Physforums other than the reason he gave. You can talk to whoever you want to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top