This thread was locked on 2013-02-19 21:50:06 by Skydancer Photos. Reason: Aaaaand, we're done.
Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Could the person who reported my avatar....

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

please PM me, so that I can call you names in private, as apparently, doing so in public is not allowed.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Feb 19 13 11:44 am Link

Photographer

Cherrystone

Posts: 36719

Columbus, Ohio, US

lol

Which one was it?

Feb 19 13 11:49 am Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 17845

Downers Grove, Illinois, US

Probably someone you pissed off in the Forums.

And probably pissed off because you told them the truth.

Feb 19 13 11:51 am Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

Small Fruit Pits wrote:
lol

Which one was it?

You can't see it because I hid the "censored" version to make it my avatar.

Some people really need to GET A FUCKING LIFE!!




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Feb 19 13 11:51 am Link

Model

Russian Katarina

Posts: 1413

London, England, United Kingdom

Photographers get away with a lot more than female models, so you guys really have little to complain about.

It's pointless to discuss these issues either way.

MM is a site where models get asked to take down their Penthouse covers/shoots with the threat of account termination, while interviews and the Penthouse covers of a well known porn/fetish/softcore photographer like Ken Marcus remain on top of the front page and MM "edu" for months.

Bottom line: It's not supposed to make sense. Do as they say, not as they do.

Feb 19 13 11:55 am Link

Model

Kozmina

Posts: 6534

Colorado Springs, Colorado, US

I loved that avi! Stupid,petty people. sad

Feb 19 13 11:55 am Link

Model

DivaEroticus

Posts: 14720

Fayetteville, Arkansas, US

I liked it, though the nono-bit coverings were a little...small.

Feb 19 13 12:00 pm Link

Photographer

BlueMoonPics

Posts: 4437

New York, New York, US

Sorry about you're avatar being taken down.
I just went to check out the rules and found this...

"- Avatars must be CLEARLY Worksafe in nature."

It's up to the mods to pass final judgement.

I wonder if my current avatar is not work safe.

Feb 19 13 12:00 pm Link

Model

DivaEroticus

Posts: 14720

Fayetteville, Arkansas, US

BlueMoonPics wrote:
Sorry about you're avatar being taken down.
I just went to check out the rules and found this...

"- Avatars must be CLEARLY Worksafe in nature."

It's up to the mods to pass final judgement.

I wonder if my current avatar is not work safe.

Well, they took mine down late last year because it was supposedly NSFW, but it's been up for more than a year, other than a short change, and it's never been a problem.  I CAMed it and it was straightened out.

Feb 19 13 12:04 pm Link

Photographer

Jay Edwards

Posts: 18276

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Could the person who reported my avatar...please PM me, so that I can call you names in private, as apparently, doing so in public is not allowed.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

So let's see: you broke the rules, someone reported it and the image was flagged. 

Hmm, seems the website is functioning properly then.

Feb 19 13 12:06 pm Link

Model

Russian Katarina

Posts: 1413

London, England, United Kingdom

BlueMoonPics wrote:
Sorry about you're avatar being taken down.
I just went to check out the rules and found this...

"- Avatars must be CLEARLY Worksafe in nature."

It's up to the mods to pass final judgement.

I wonder if my current avatar is not work safe.

My daisy dukes avatar was deleted for that same reason. It's a clothed avatar with partial buttocks - I've seen active photographers with models wearing nothing but a string tanga in the avi not being hassled about it.

The enforcement of rules in this place is random and arbitrary, that's why it's a waste of time arguing about it.

Feb 19 13 12:15 pm Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15546

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

I miss that red and white box... had the same thing about 1 year ago.

Too much buttock showing.

Feb 19 13 12:17 pm Link

Photographer

Andialu

Posts: 14029

San Pedro, California, US

It was me. I found it highly offensive!

Feb 19 13 12:18 pm Link

Photographer

Cherrystone

Posts: 36719

Columbus, Ohio, US

Russian Katarina wrote:
Photographers get away with a lot more than female models, so you guys really have little to complain about.

It's pointless to discuss these issues either way.

MM is a site where models get asked to take down their Penthouse covers/shoots with the threat of account termination, while interviews and the Penthouse covers of a well known porn/fetish/softcore photographer like Ken Marcus remain on top of the front page and MM "edu" for months.

Bottom line: It's not supposed to make sense. Do as they say, not as they do.

Folks who have breasts are given a lot wider latitude on here.

Generally speaking, across the board, I'd disagree with the bold, and I'm assuming your coming to your conclusion based on your personal experience.

Feb 19 13 12:18 pm Link

Model

Russian Katarina

Posts: 1413

London, England, United Kingdom

Small Fruit Pits wrote:

Folks who have breasts are given a lot wider latitude on here.

Generally speaking, across the board, I'd disagree with the bold, and I'm assuming your coming to your conclusion based on your personal experience.

This place is renowned for its sexism against female members.

Feb 19 13 12:20 pm Link

Model

Wynd Mulysa

Posts: 8612

Berkeley, California, US

Russian Katarina wrote:
The enforcement of rules in this place is random and arbitrary, that's why it's a waste of time arguing about it.

Yep.

Feb 19 13 12:22 pm Link

Photographer

BlueMoonPics

Posts: 4437

New York, New York, US

Russian Katarina wrote:
My daisy dukes avatar was deleted for that same reason. It's a clothed avatar with partial buttocks - I've seen active photographers with models wearing nothing but a string tanga in the avi not being hassled about it.

The enforcement of rules in this place is random and arbitrary, that's why it's a waste of time arguing about it.

I remember the daisy dukes avatar, it was nice.  Can't believe it was taken down.
But then with a figure like yours, maybe all of your images are NSFW.  tongue

Feb 19 13 12:27 pm Link

Photographer

PhotographybyT

Posts: 7693

Monterey, California, US

In protest, we should all participate in  "Naughty Avatar Day!" tongue

Feb 19 13 12:40 pm Link

Model

Russian Katarina

Posts: 1413

London, England, United Kingdom

BlueMoonPics wrote:

I remember the daisy dukes avatar, it was nice.  Can't believe it was taken down.
But then with a figure like yours, maybe all of your images are NSFW.  tongue

All of my images that show any kind of buttock or hint of pokie get marked 18+ by the mods quickly - either because mods are hovering over my portfolio or because jealous models / catty togs CAM my new images quickly.

I am actually surprised that the daisy dukes avatar lasted a whole day.

Feb 19 13 12:44 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

PashaPhoto

Posts: 9726

Brooklyn, New York, US

Russian Katarina wrote:

All of my images that show any kind of buttock or hint of pokie get marked 18+ by the mods quickly - either because mods are hovering over my portfolio or because jealous models / catty togs CAM my new images quickly.

I am actually surprised that the daisy dukes avatar lasted a whole day.

it could be because you're active on the forums, and it just gives the mods an extra chance to stumble upon your avi...

i've seen some wildly inappropriate avi's that seemed to stay on forever, and the one thing i've noticed is that they almost always belong to accounts that are not overly active...

Feb 19 13 12:47 pm Link

Photographer

PhotographybyT

Posts: 7693

Monterey, California, US

Russian Katarina wrote:

All of my images that show any kind of buttock or hint of pokie ...

Pokie?? big_smile  Haha... that's funny!

Is there a Gumby? tongue

Feb 19 13 12:51 pm Link

Photographer

Wildcat Photography

Posts: 1486

Valparaiso, Indiana, US

Russian Katarina wrote:

My daisy dukes avatar was deleted for that same reason. It's a clothed avatar with partial buttocks - I've seen active photographers with models wearing nothing but a string tanga in the avi not being hassled about it.

The enforcement of rules in this place is random and arbitrary, that's why it's a waste of time arguing about it.

Yes, it is sad when an image like that of you gets flagged...but you can see more buttocks & cleavage on Prime Time TV in the US...

Very strange.

Well, we all like you (and the way you look)...so keep pushing the limits...LOL!

Wildcat

Feb 19 13 01:01 pm Link

Model

Russian Katarina

Posts: 1413

London, England, United Kingdom

Wildcat Photography wrote:

Yes, it is sad when an image like that of you gets flagged...but you can see more buttocks & cleavage on Prime Time TV in the US...

Very strange.

Well, we all like you (and the way you look)...so keep pushing the limits...LOL!

Wildcat

It's funny that they censor daisy dukes while advertising Russian mail order brides and legendary porn photographers on their front page.

Feb 19 13 01:05 pm Link

Photographer

A N D E R S O N

Posts: 2553

Fountain Valley, California, US

PhotographybyT wrote:
In protest, we should all participate in  "Naughty Avatar Day!" tongue

lol, that would be awesome.

Feb 19 13 01:35 pm Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
please PM me, so that I can call you names in private, as apparently, doing so in public is not allowed.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I need to see your avatar (don't remember which one) so I can decide if I'm offended.

Feb 19 13 02:13 pm Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

BlueMoonPics wrote:
Sorry about you're avatar being taken down.
I just went to check out the rules and found this...

"- Avatars must be CLEARLY Worksafe in nature."

It's up to the mods to pass final judgement.

I wonder if my current avatar is not work safe.

That depends...is her neck properly supported?

Feb 19 13 02:14 pm Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

Russian Katarina wrote:

It's funny that they censor daisy dukes while advertising Russian mail order brides and legendary porn photographers on their front page.

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/education_upload/120426/16/4f99dcb5bc798.jpg

Because this image clearly goes to far?  Or is because it says Penthouse at the top?

If you want to show how MM is being silly, I'm sure there are millions of examples.  I think jumping on Ken because of what he shoots is petty as the example photo would, in my opinion, pass as an avatar.  But I could be wrong. I haven't check the rules recently.  Are covers for adult magazines a no-no for avatars?

Feb 19 13 02:19 pm Link

Photographer

Tim Little Photography

Posts: 11598

Wilmington, Delaware, US

I don't understand people that complain about a little skin. This is Model Mayhem! People in various states of dress, or undress, go with the turf.

Feb 19 13 02:23 pm Link

Photographer

Orca Bay Images

Posts: 32234

Woodinville, Washington, US

Christopher Hartman wrote:
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/education_upload/120426/16/4f99dcb5bc798.jpg

Because this image clearly goes to far?  Or is because it says Penthouse at the top?

How does that cover go too far?

Feb 19 13 02:34 pm Link

Model

Russian Katarina

Posts: 1413

London, England, United Kingdom

Christopher Hartman wrote:
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/education_upload/120426/16/4f99dcb5bc798.jpg

Because this image clearly goes to far?  Or is because it says Penthouse at the top?

If you want to show how MM is being silly, I'm sure there are millions of examples.  I think jumping on Ken because of what he shoots is petty as the example photo would, in my opinion, pass as an avatar.  But I could be wrong. I haven't check the rules recently.  Are covers for adult magazines a no-no for avatars?

You can not even mention on your profile that you worked for Penthouse or any other publication MM deems unfit for their advertisers - yet those interviews are on the front page for weeks - with the Penthouse cover as avi of the article.

I removed my entire, sizable credit list when the mods hassled me about it. They wanted me to prove for every web site/magazine mentioned that there was nothing they considered inappropriate anywhere on those sites and publications. It was either removing all of my credits or "we will terminate your account" according to an admin.

The MM rules are arbitrary and randomly enforced. When it's a big shot like Ken Marcus who lends credibility and fame to this site with his reputation, they are more than happy to accomodate him and bend the rules - not so much for us regular members.

Feb 19 13 02:35 pm Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

Orca Bay Images wrote:

How does that cover go too far?

Sarcastic rhetorical question.  Sorry...

Feb 19 13 02:47 pm Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

Russian Katarina wrote:

You can not even mention on your profile that you worked for Penthouse or any other publication MM deems unfit for their advertisers - yet those interviews are on the front page for weeks - with the Penthouse cover as avi of the article.

I removed my entire, sizable credit list when the mods hassled me about it. They wanted me to prove for every web site/magazine mentioned that there was nothing they considered inappropriate anywhere on those sites and publications. It was either removing all of my credits or "we will terminate your account" according to an admin.

The MM rules are arbitrary and randomly enforced. When it's a big shot like Ken Marcus who lends credibility and fame to this site with his reputation, they are more than happy to accomodate him and bend the rules - not so much for us regular members.

Assuming this is true, the MODs need to address this and they really need to address this now.  What happened to you is bullshit.  Perhaps it was a single mod being a prick?

Feb 19 13 02:49 pm Link

Photographer

HOTTIE SHOTS

Posts: 5959

Memphis, Tennessee, US

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
please PM me, so that I can call you names in private, as apparently, doing so in public is not allowed.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I doubt anyone reported it, the moderators will red flag you if they stumble across it.  A few year ago when they changed the rules on avatars I kept breaking them apparently.  I had a moderator contact me and tell me they were watching my avatars.  So maybe they are watching yours.  smile

Feb 19 13 02:55 pm Link

Model

Russian Katarina

Posts: 1413

London, England, United Kingdom

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Assuming this is true, the MODs need to address this and they really need to address this now.  What happened to you is bullshit.  Perhaps it was a single mod being a prick?

They applied that "rule" to more models than just me. I remember chatting with Brett Rossi about it and she had to remove a ton of her credentials or else -> ban. It is the way it is. Arguing about any nonsensical rule enforcements with the mods here is a waste of time that never, ever yields any positive results in your favor.

Personally Ken could post his excellent bondage porn here if it were up to me. It's just funny that they put his Penthouse cover on the front page for months while us models can't even mention that we worked for them in our profiles. MM is nothing if not entertaining.

Feb 19 13 02:56 pm Link

Model

T A Y L O R

Posts: 2977

Austin, Texas, US

Russian Katarina wrote:

They applied that "rule" to more models than just me. I remember chatting with Brett Rossi about it and she had to remove a ton of her credentials or else -> ban. It is the way it is. Arguing about any nonsensical rule enforcements with the mods here is a waste of time that never, ever yields any positive results in your favor.

Personally Ken could post his excellent bondage porn here if it were up to me. It's just funny that they put his Penthouse cover on the front page for months while us models can't even mention that we worked for them in our profiles. MM is nothing if not entertaining.

Ashley Graham too, if I remember correctly. Agreed that it's ridiculous.

Feb 19 13 03:00 pm Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

Russian Katarina wrote:

They applied that "rule" to more models than just me. I remember chatting with Brett Rossi about it and she had to remove a ton of her credentials or else -> ban. It is the way it is. Arguing about any nonsensical rule enforcements with the mods here is a waste of time that never, ever yields any positive results in your favor.

Personally Ken could post his excellent bondage porn here if it were up to me. It's just funny that they put his Penthouse cover on the front page for months while us models can't even mention that we worked for them in our profiles. MM is nothing if not entertaining.

maybe this needs to be in Site-Related and getting someone from IB to address it rather than the unpaid MODs that leave rules up to their interpretation so that you can get 30 different interpretations.

Feb 19 13 03:02 pm Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17958

Los Angeles, California, US

is this the correct way to do an appeal wink

Feb 19 13 03:03 pm Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15546

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

Playboy have their avi quiet often flashed up on the VIP stars.. all very strange.

Feb 19 13 03:06 pm Link

Model

Russian Katarina

Posts: 1413

London, England, United Kingdom

Christopher Hartman wrote:

maybe this needs to be in Site-Related and getting someone from IB to address it rather than the unpaid MODs that leave rules up to their interpretation so that you can get 30 different interpretations.

No it doesn't. Challenging IB is a very bad idea if you want to keep your account. Just leave it be.

Feb 19 13 03:06 pm Link

Photographer

ArtisticPhotography

Posts: 7699

Buffalo, New York, US

Russian Katarina wrote:

This place is renowned for its sexism against female members.

Oh give me a break.

There's one female member who used to post a lot in the forums. She had strong religious views. She could say anything she wanted and get away with it. She could threaten people, call them names and generally do whatever she wanted. But if you started to insult her, or reference her other posts to show she was being hypocritical, then BAM you were brigged. So, don't think start talking about it being anti-female around here.

Feb 19 13 03:09 pm Link