Well, every so often things cross the line and other times they stand right on it, precariously, or even tow it a little. We've long had the guideline here in the challenges that no nudity is allowed and anything implied would be handled case by case by your beloved mods (ahem). The guideline that's been posted in several threads and answered repeatedly in PMs is "If it belongs in the Go Figure forum, it does not belong in the challenges."
After much discussion, MikeyRocks's entry will be disqualified. Please note that personally we do not have an issue with the image; in fact, it's part of why we created the Go Figure forum here on DGrin. If this image had been posted in the People forum, we would have moved it into Go Figure.
Because this question has come up several times, we've upgraded the guideline to a rule and updated the rules accordingly. We'll still make the call case by case when needed, but hopefully this update will help in the future.
Firstly, Kerry, in regards to MikeyRocks's dq'd shot, I have no problem with you or you having to make the tough decision to dq it because you are just doing what any mod would have to do. You are right; it is a fine line, and I have no issues with you or the rules. So I want to make it clear that I am not "bashing" you for having to dq it.
All I will say is that art is art and MikeyRocks's entry was tastefully done and shows no more nudity than a bathing suit shot or even the multitude of maternity shots throughout these challenges. Yes it pushes the boundries. Network TV (the tamest of all media) would have no problem showing that image (remember Deme Moore's maternity photo?) I would assume that an image that pushes the bounds of nudity would be considered offensive, yet in the smiles page of these post replies, there are smiles of raising the B.S. flag, a smile of someone shooting someone with an assault rifle, multiple smiles of giving the finger, and even one nude smile of a rear-end.
It was a beautiful capture and conversion, and I'm sorry to see that it was DQ'd. It remains in my fav 10 in the unofficial feedback thread, and since it is dq'd, I now only have a fav 9. :nah
Oh, dear - that's too bad. I didn't realize the EXIF info. was not showing up. I tried to find a way to directly link the photo from my smugmug gallery and couldn't figure it out. Actually, I've been having trouble linking photos from my gallery into the mini challenges as well. So, I originally uploaded the photo here, downloaded a copy onto my laptop and then uploaded it from there. Oh, well..
Oh, dear - that's too bad. I didn't realize the EXIF info. was not showing up. I tried to find a way to directly link the photo from my smugmug gallery and couldn't figure it out. Actually, I've been having trouble linking photos from my gallery into the mini challenges as well.
So, I originally uploaded the photo here, downloaded a copy onto my laptop and then uploaded it from there. Oh, well..
Sunita
That's actually a nearly sure fire way to kill the metadata. Smugmug strips it and shows the info from a database. You can however do it this way as long as you use the 'Owner save' link - that should have everything untouched.
I would assume that an image that pushes the bounds of nudity would be considered offensive, yet in the smiles page of these post replies, there are smiles of raising the B.S. flag, a smile of someone shooting someone with an assault rifle, multiple smiles of giving the finger, and even one nude smile of a rear-end.
Brian
i understand the rule. i guess i just dont understand why its there...
if it can be on dgrin (even go figure) why not the challenges.
its strange how nudity is singled out in general.... personally i found many entries here in the past far more offensive.
my favorite is explaining (one of the thumbnails up top) to my son (whom was looking over my shoulder) why there is a man holding a gun to his head with tears in his eyes...
FWIW, I did not find MikeyRock's entry at all offensive. It shows less skin and no more curves than many of the maternity shots on the People forum. Moreover, although I haven't checked it out, I think that many of the "implied" mude shots that stay in the People forum show more skin than this one, though maybe the models are not so well endowed.
Oh well. It was a clever, well executed entry with a title that made me laugh.
Virginia
PS - Not arguing with the mods, just sayin' .........
_______________________________________________ "A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Please know such images will always be handled on a case-by-case basis. The fine line we're balancing on is art vs. family-friendly content, and it's like walking a tight-rope: easily (and validly) swayed from side to side.
This decision was not made lightly nor easily. The decision stands, but the door isn't closed. There's just that tight-rope-like line there, and it's really frakkin' hard to balance on.
To answer Aaron's question, the challenges are public and the Go Figure forum needs to be opted in to (a small roadblock, but it's there). That's the key difference.
You know the moment I saw that photo I thought to myself, it is gonna get axed... your just doing your job, and that is a good thing keeping this place consistent, clean and balanced. it can't be easy.. but I am sure it is appreciated by many families with kids, mine included. Everyone says it showed no more than a bathing suit, but then they have to consider the way it was shot too,, it was suggestive with the angle it was shot at. So I see where you and the other authorities were coming from Kerry.. As adults we may be desensitized to this, but they are trying to keep entire families who upload and visit smugmug regularly in mind.. So, I personally stand in their defense and appreciate that they have am actual "standard" we can rely on...
That aside.. I will say, it was a gorgeous and well shot image. It was tasteful on an "adult" level... for adult eyes.. and the message was well conveyed with a woman being imprisoned in a bra all the time... I thought it was witty and the lighting on the shot was very skillful too...
Kat
P.S. I can't for the life of me figure out why people don't just run an image by you first on the board when in doubt before entering... ????? Seems simple enough.
I can't for the life of me figure out why people don't just run an image by you first on the board when in doubt before entering... ????? Seems simple enough.
Ack, nothing would ever get done or posted if we started that! :twitch Honestly, I agonize over every decision in an effort to be as fair and open-minded as possible. I don't think I'd make up my mind in time before a challenge period ended if we started down that road.
Thankfully, this isn't the only challenge. There are more challenges to come, which means more opportunities.
Kerry,
I'm sure that DQing MikeyRocks' image was no easy decision and when you have the best interests of the forum in mind you will always have my full support, whether I agree with you or not. Being a Mod is not an easy job and your service is greatly appreciated.
I noticed that the photo in question has been pulled from the challenge entry thread. Has it been posted somewhere else so that we might view it?
It's disappointing to see my entry get disqualified, especially since I read (and re-read) the rules until my eyes bled and saw nothing in regards to nudity. I know it was mentioned this rule has been in "other threads" and in "private messages" but in the challenge rules, this was not listed. I see that those in charge have kindly corrected this.
The photo was my first entry into any contest whatsoever and my whole reason for this is to share a work that I am proud of... I could care less about winning but for the judges to weed out my photo out for disqualification feels like a punch to the gut.
I won't bother questioning why the judges deemed my photo was "crossing the line" on the basis of implied nudity when the photo of the pregnant woman/lady right before my photo was not DQ'd as well. Would my photo be legit/unoffensive if my subject had a pregnant belly? To sum up, my photo had no direct nudity and the subject was not posed in a sexual manner.
I know it was mentioned that the main reason is because you are trying to keep DGrin "family-friendly." I guess the next time I take my son or daughter to see Michaelangelo's Statue of David is when they're 18, because his penis (am I not allowed to say that, either?) is not "family-friendly."
Censorship is what prevents real art from being shown to the masses. It is the true enemy of expression. Keep the forum (and dgrin) about spreading a form of art. Not stifling it.
If you wish to view the photo, I'll be posting it on my website by tomorrow: http://www.mikeyrocks.net
Comments
Firstly, Kerry, in regards to MikeyRocks's dq'd shot, I have no problem with you or you having to make the tough decision to dq it because you are just doing what any mod would have to do. You are right; it is a fine line, and I have no issues with you or the rules. So I want to make it clear that I am not "bashing" you for having to dq it.
All I will say is that art is art and MikeyRocks's entry was tastefully done and shows no more nudity than a bathing suit shot or even the multitude of maternity shots throughout these challenges. Yes it pushes the boundries. Network TV (the tamest of all media) would have no problem showing that image (remember Deme Moore's maternity photo?) I would assume that an image that pushes the bounds of nudity would be considered offensive, yet in the smiles page of these post replies, there are smiles of raising the B.S. flag, a smile of someone shooting someone with an assault rifle, multiple smiles of giving the finger, and even one nude smile of a rear-end.
It was a beautiful capture and conversion, and I'm sorry to see that it was DQ'd. It remains in my fav 10 in the unofficial feedback thread, and since it is dq'd, I now only have a fav 9. :nah
Brian
www.bf2015.smugmug.com
So, I originally uploaded the photo here, downloaded a copy onto my laptop and then uploaded it from there. Oh, well..
Sunita
That's actually a nearly sure fire way to kill the metadata. Smugmug strips it and shows the info from a database. You can however do it this way as long as you use the 'Owner save' link - that should have everything untouched.
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
i understand the rule. i guess i just dont understand why its there...
if it can be on dgrin (even go figure) why not the challenges.
its strange how nudity is singled out in general.... personally i found many entries here in the past far more offensive.
my favorite is explaining (one of the thumbnails up top) to my son (whom was looking over my shoulder) why there is a man holding a gun to his head with tears in his eyes...
what is offensive in society sure is odd IMO.
www.bf2015.smugmug.com
My Photos - Powered by SmugMug!
absolutely agree - didn't find anything offensive about the image
a gun to a head - wouldn't no where to start explaining that to my kid
Jase // www.stonesque.com
Oh well. It was a clever, well executed entry with a title that made me laugh.
Virginia
PS - Not arguing with the mods, just sayin' .........
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Email
This decision was not made lightly nor easily. The decision stands, but the door isn't closed. There's just that tight-rope-like line there, and it's really frakkin' hard to balance on.
To answer Aaron's question, the challenges are public and the Go Figure forum needs to be opted in to (a small roadblock, but it's there). That's the key difference.
That aside.. I will say, it was a gorgeous and well shot image. It was tasteful on an "adult" level... for adult eyes.. and the message was well conveyed with a woman being imprisoned in a bra all the time... I thought it was witty and the lighting on the shot was very skillful too...
Kat
P.S. I can't for the life of me figure out why people don't just run an image by you first on the board when in doubt before entering... ????? Seems simple enough.
Ack, nothing would ever get done or posted if we started that! :twitch Honestly, I agonize over every decision in an effort to be as fair and open-minded as possible. I don't think I'd make up my mind in time before a challenge period ended if we started down that road.
Thankfully, this isn't the only challenge. There are more challenges to come, which means more opportunities.
I'm sure that DQing MikeyRocks' image was no easy decision and when you have the best interests of the forum in mind you will always have my full support, whether I agree with you or not. Being a Mod is not an easy job and your service is greatly appreciated.
I noticed that the photo in question has been pulled from the challenge entry thread. Has it been posted somewhere else so that we might view it?
My Site, My Book
I move all DQ'd entries out of the main gallery to avoid confusing judges. DQs for this round can be seen here for a short while (eventually the gallery will be deleted): http://challenges.smugmug.com/gallery/8565015_vekK3#555949576_fVy8j
The photo was my first entry into any contest whatsoever and my whole reason for this is to share a work that I am proud of... I could care less about winning but for the judges to weed out my photo out for disqualification feels like a punch to the gut.
I won't bother questioning why the judges deemed my photo was "crossing the line" on the basis of implied nudity when the photo of the pregnant woman/lady right before my photo was not DQ'd as well. Would my photo be legit/unoffensive if my subject had a pregnant belly? To sum up, my photo had no direct nudity and the subject was not posed in a sexual manner.
I know it was mentioned that the main reason is because you are trying to keep DGrin "family-friendly." I guess the next time I take my son or daughter to see Michaelangelo's Statue of David is when they're 18, because his penis (am I not allowed to say that, either?) is not "family-friendly."
Censorship is what prevents real art from being shown to the masses. It is the true enemy of expression. Keep the forum (and dgrin) about spreading a form of art. Not stifling it.
If you wish to view the photo, I'll be posting it on my website by tomorrow: http://www.mikeyrocks.net