Request for a rule change

[GostHacked]

Alright, so I was contacted and advised to remove a video and simply provide a link to the video due to the graphic content. It seems to be against rules here to show this kind of material. I would suggest these rules be changed as sometimes these very graphic videos provide context to the thread being discussed.

It's not pleasant to view that kind of material, I agree, but if put into the right context and respects the thread, then there really should be no problem.

Perhaps many are not ready to deal with some true horrors of the state of the world we live in. Perhaps keeping yourself in the dark is acceptable.

We post videos of simulated violence often without any issues but when REAL violence happens, people simply do not want to look at it. Well, the thing is that this is the real stuff and not the fake stuff on TV. So it SHOULD disturb you. You might be dead inside if it does not.

Some things simply cannot be sanitized, and to drive the point home, in some cases you need to be disturbed before you can deal with the issue at hand.

I am not saying that graphic content should be posted just for the sake of graphic content. I cannot watch a lot of it myself, I just simply cannot handle it. And by me not being able to handle it, means it has impact.

I actually don't expect a change, but I thought I would bring this up here.

Thanks for listening.

[waldo]

without knowing the full details/nature of the video, I expect the request might reflect upon the actual visual presented in the still-video... before actually running the video. If that 'still visual' is a graphic image itself, MLW members are presented that visual whether they choose to run the video or not. Or, alternatively/perhaps, the request to you simply reflects upon a preference to not directly embed a graphic video within a MLW post... in that case, the request asking you to alternatively provide a link to that video (hosted elsewhere) seems a reasonable compromise/request.

Edited July 6, 2013 by waldo

[cybercoma]

Any graphic material, out of respect for the other posters should be prefaced with a NSFW warning. People know there is horrific graphic violence in real life, but would rather not see it and it may be inappropriate for them to view on work computers.

[Topaz]

If we would see it on the news, why not here and we do have choice to click or not click.

[cybercoma]

If we would see it on the news, why not here and we do have choice to click or not click.

Even the news prefaces particularly graphic videos with a warning.

[Guest American Woman]

If we would see it on the news, why not here and we do have choice to click or not click.

We don't have a choice to click or not click if it's posted on the site. A link is required as the rules stand, which does give the members a choice to click or not click. Gosthacked is suggesting that the rules be changed so that the graphic material does not have to be linked to, but posted on the site for all to see without clicking. I had no idea such a rule existed (I don't see it in the rules and guidelines), and I think clarification as to what's considered "graphic" might be helpful in the rules.

[bush_cheney2004]

Members do not need to see actual "snuff flicks" to understand what is going on. Clearly the objective of such a "rules change" is to convey and elicit the same response that the poster "feels" strongly about and would surely change ambivalent or contrary views if only the "shock" value was in the fore.. This "in your face" approach can actually be counterproductive. Leave the policy as is IMHO, or be prepared for MLW - Al Qaeda style.

[BubberMiley]

I prefer to live a sheltered life where I never come across anything I might wish to unsee later.

[Charles Anthony]

I actually don't expect a change, but I thought I would bring this up here.

Thanks for listening.

I do not expect a change either but we are listening. I wished the forum software provided some more flexibility but alas, it does not.

I had no idea such a rule existed (I don't see it in the rules and guidelines), and I think clarification as to what's considered "graphic" might be helpful in the rules.

There are none.

There are no hard and fast rules concerning the matter but Waldo has the general idea. Our moderation is purely subjective on a case by case basis. Images and embedded media are a challenge in moderating discussions. It is not easy for me because I genuinely agree with the gist of the OP here. However, more graphic content would degrade the quality of the forum because that is what people seem to do when too much media is embedded in forums.

Personally, I would be much more comfortable if we disallowed all embedded imagery be it still or photoplay.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, there is always old school ASCII art:

Edited July 7, 2013 by bush_cheney2004