bhavv v Lefty Scaevola

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: This appeal thread is in its original form, save for the removal of PM correspondence due to the lack of the poster's consent, and the removal of any content deemed inappropriate.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

bhavv has decided to appeal his 2 point infraction for Inappropriate Content, handed out by Lefty Scaevola on 16 January for this post.

This is the infraction PM:

Dear bhavv,

You have received an infraction at Civilization Fanatics' Forums.

Reason: Inappropriate Content
-------
Nudity, image deleted.
-------

This infraction is worth 2 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
[post]14124108[/post]

<snip>

If you wish to appeal this infraction, please follow the process outlined in this post

All the best,
Civilization Fanatics' Forums

And this is the correspondence that has been sent to me by bhavv (at the beginning he is referring to a PM I sent him relating to an infraction he received from leif):
<snip>

Also note this PM exchange:
<snip>

As he is currently banned, and overturning this infraction would result in him being unbanned, we should probably proceed quickly (though I would note that as he has had the opportunity to appeal for over a week already and has not done so, he's not really in a position to complain about delay).

bhavv has further added:
<snip>

Whether that post is appropriate is probably best discussed in the report forum, as it has no bearing on this appeal - whether the post in question is inappropriate is entirely independent of whether the one pointed to by bhavv is.

I have contacted Lefty for any further comments he might have.

So points to address:

• Inappropriateness of the image.
• Whether bhavv gets less slack with inappropriate content.

 

[Camikaze]

This is the complete PM correspondence:

<snip>

<snip>

 

[illram]

I'd vote to uphold. Clearly inappropriate, for the reasons Lefty states in his PM's.

Also this would be my decision regardless of the poster; that it is bhavv has nothing to do with the fact that this post is pretty clearly inappropriate as it is pretty clearly supposed to look like a giant hairy butt. Actually considering bhavv's rather extensive infraction history he got off easy.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I don't know bhavv but agree with what Lefty has said in his pms. Vote to uphold.

 

[ori]

Yes, this one is easy enough to decide - it most certainly does not fall on the appropriate content side of the line. Uphold.

 

[Browd]

Agree with uphold.

 

[Camikaze]

I actually don't see how this breaks the inappropriate content rules. It's a picture of a head and shoulder. There is no visual nudity. I mean, I obviously get what the picture is about, but I just don't think that's inappropriate. I don't think pictures are inappropriate just because they happen to look similar to something that would be. Surely they become inappropriate when they actually are that thing.

I suppose it could count as 'strategically covered nudity', but that would seem to suggest the inappropriate aspect is what is being covered by the head and shoulder, rather than the head and shoulder itself.

I do think someone with a history of posting inappropriate content gets less room to push the envelope, but inappropriate content's pretty binary; it's either inappropriate or it's not. Not much space in between. But if a poster with a history of posting inappropriate content does so, they can expect a stiffer punishment. If this is regarded to be inappropriate, bhavv is probably quite lucky to have only received an infraction, rather than a ban.

I guess inappropriate content is pretty open to interpretation, though so far 4-1. Anything further before I wrap this up?

 

[ori]

for me the inappropriateness starts where you can reasonably expect an unprepared viewer to see this as nudity of a kind we would regard as inappropriate when first encountering the image (as was the intent of the post). It does not really matter to me whether after careful examination or explanation it turns out to show something other than cursory viewing would suggest as is the case here.

 

[Browd]

And that is the problem with this post. The content is inappropriate because its only purpose is to create the impression of nudity, and thereby shock the viewer. "Look at this titillating photo. Surprise, it's an optical illusion! No actual nudity." does not, in my view, rescue the post. Just as we don't permit posts that simulate sexual activity, but don't contain actual sexual activity. we should not permit photos that simulate nudity (particularly in a stunningly effective way), but don't contain actual nudity.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm now just awaiting bhavv's response as to whether he consents to the publication of his PMs.

 

[Camikaze]

bhavv still hasn't responded, though he has been online. I will wait another day for a reply before proceeding.

 

[Camikaze]

Well he still hasn't got back to me, so I sent him this PM and will publish the thread without his PMs:

Hi bhavv,

Your appeal of your infraction for inappropriate content, issued by Lefty Scaevola, has been rejected. The image you posted was intended to simulate nudity, and was therefore not appropriate for our family-friendly standard. That the image did not contain actual nudity does not obviate the inappropriate intention of the image.

The appeal thread will be posted in the 'Infraction Review' subforum, with certain redactions made, including of your PMs, which you have not given permission to publish.

In future, it would be appreciated if you were to answer PMs once you have started the review process. The process is designed to be one in which you correspond with the presiding super moderator.

Regards,
Camikaze