I just recieved a warning BUT I violated no rule! I request my warning by reversed.

I request my warning by reversed.

WF policy states....

1. My thread was clearly marked - "Nude pics"
2. It was NOT full frontal. Only topless.

I violated no rule.

HA! I got a violation for showing the vague outline of a nipple of Vanessa Minnillo wearing a semi-shear top.

What the fuck is the point of having a policy if it doesn't mean anything?

The notice was the warning you received.

My standard for nudity (and I am not claiming this is necessarily the official WF viewpoint) is that if I could reasonably expect grief were my company's human resources director to see it on MY screen, it goes over the line.

The image of Anna Chapman showed her topless with nipples clearly visible. I would not expect the image to be tolerated at ANY place I've ever worked.

Oh...well... that's nice.

Seriously, do the mods even read the policy?
I mean if they don't want any nude pics, FINE! But be fair, change the policy and let everyone know the deal.

Fine. Then the policy should reflect that.
You shouldn't quote one standard then follow another.

Until Lanz tells me otherwise, I consider topless pics to be in violation of the stated rule.

The rule says "full frontal".
Topless is not full frontal. Not by any current standard.

Until Lanz tells me otherwise, I consider topless pics to be in violation of the stated rule.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

^
Well you're wrong.

I post the following evidence...........

www.imdb.com - A leading resource in motion pictures and picture standards considers topless to be different than full frontal.

The MPAA considers topless and full frontal to be different.

Please post your evidence that full frontal and topless are the same thing.

^If you were arguing a movie rating, the MPAA might be authoritative. The key words are not "full frontal" which are enclosed parenthetically, but "explicit nudity." I consider images of topless women to be explicit nudity.

It's also quite clear from the remainder of the text that the rule is concerned with consequences arising from such images appearing on members' screens at work. You don't believe the image you posted would be acceptable in the workplace, do you?

It should also be noted that more than one member was upset at your posting that image without some kind of warning.

^
You can't just ignore words in the policy because you don't like them.

"Explicit nudity" is clearly defined as "Full Frontal." Probably to keep bullshit warnings like this from happening in the first place.

List of workplaces where this would be acceptable....

USAToday
New York Times
CNN
MSNBC
CBS News
ABC News
NBC News
BBC News
Fox News
G4's Attack of the Show
Boston Globe
San Francisco Gate


The list goes on and on.....

^I don't see it that way. Until I'm directed otherwise, I'll consider topless to be explicit nudity.

I can repeat it as many times as you need.

Really? Attack of the Show does not seem on par with the others, but of the other recognized news outlets you listed, do any have the uncensored images on their own sites?

Why didn't you just post it in the White Room?

Yes? No?

Splendid idea!

*edit*

Er, I mean I am politely skipping through the help desk, on my merry way.

Tra la la la la.

I really don't know. Feel free to check.

You asked for a workplace where viewing the images would be allowed. I listed them.
I have no idea if they've chosen to publish them. Those are two separate issues.

I just want to say this...

People shouldn't have to guess what the rules are.

If you don't want any nudity, then fine. Say that. Don't write a rule that says "full frontal" is banned and then warn someone who posts a topless picture of a RELEVANT news article.

Ideally what I'd like to see happen here is (1) my warning is reversed, and (2) the rule is rewritten to comply with what the moderators have chosen to enforce.

I think that's pretty fair myself.

Everyone keeps saying 'he knew what the deal was'. Well you know what? No I didn't. Maybe 1% of my posts are in the Red Room, I prefer Media Central and the gaming forum. I had no idea about this unspoken rule everyone claims to know about. I know what I read in the written rules and followed that. If that's not good enough then it needs to be changed.

Topless chick = NSFW = explicit nudity. End of line.

^
Fine. Then write the rule to reflect that!

I think Para has a point here. The rule is poorly worded at best, and misleading at worst.

You have explicit nudity and then in brackets, full frontal. A user could surmise that the explicit nudity to mean full frontal nudity. Otherwise, explain why it is in brackets.

There's a likely chance Para is just trying to troll the forum and get people in trouble at work, but on the off chance that he thought topless pictures were ok, then the warning should be receded.

All that other stuff like violent pictures and people at work is not what's at debate, but the wording of explict, and in brackets, "full frontal".

^
It's in brackets because clearly it's meant to be the definition of "explicit".

Now sometime after that rule was written somebody at the top decided hey that's not good enough. Which is fine I guess. But then they never changed the rule, creating this rather LARGE inconsistency - and penalizing me for it to boot.

EDIT -

I thought I should address this....

When have I ever tried to get anyone here in trouble in real life? I've never trolled like that. I don't play like that. When pictures of TBonz's kids where floating around TK I did my best to put a stop to it and informed her it was happening. I just don't go there.

And if I wanted to get people in trouble why would I label the thread "nude pics" ? I would have certainly titled it something else.

Also, and I can't believe this even needs to be said, I don't troll here. I mean I actively pimp this site on the playstation network and helped create it's Wordforge Clubhouse. I have no interest in trolling here.

Perhaps adding "i.e. full-frontal" instead of just "full frontal" would solve all your problems and more!

Then you're nothing compared to me.

^
Why not just say nudity if that's the case?

For example:

"Please refrain from posting any pictures of hot chicks (black, blond, Asian, or redheads). Doing so will result in a warning."

So say someone posts a picture of Megan Fox or Dark Angel era Jessica Alba. Would you warn them in that situation? That's essentially what the call is here.

My opinion is, the warning is only a friendly one anyways, so rescind it, and reword the rule, removing the full frontal, and just have it say nudity.

or

play hardball, and risk a contribution member sour on this place and not post anymore, or post less.