August 7, 2008 at 9:38 pm #1385
Regarding blood/dead animals/gore.
I understand that things such as the Free Cat sign picture with the roadkill cat isn’t allowed on fark. No problem there.
And I appreciate that my dead fish picture from this week was allowed, as was my dead fish on a platter from the Dinner Is Served theme a few contests back.
But I’m confused on the purpose of having this picture, which shows a dead fish with some blood on its head not allowed
when this image (which I love, don’t get me wrong) is allowed to stand
Yes, I realize it’s fake blood. But it’s a scene of gore, nonetheless. And my argument isn’t that sclark’s image be disallowed, but rather to question why mine was.
Similarly, I’ve had this image pulled from a contest
due to the salmon the eagle was eating. But I would venture to say that if I went down to the harbor and caught a salmon on a pole, filleted it and took a picture of the fillet, that would be allowed.
I’m confused as to what I see as fairly arbitrary standards and am wondering what others have to say.August 7, 2008 at 9:56 pm #18420
Mostly because sclark’s was pretty obviously fake and was stated as such. There’s no visible wound, it’s just a hand painted red. The Eagle shot might have been ok. There are a lot of judgement calls made, and while every effort is made to be as consistent as possible, there will be questionable calls over the course of hundreds and thousands of entries. Sorry, but we’re only human.August 7, 2008 at 10:05 pm #18421
I really don’t aim to criticize at all, so please don’t take it as such. But from what you’re saying, if I took a dead fish and applied fake blood to it, that would be ok, but actual blood that looks the same isn’t.
Honestly, I was surprised that my dead fish photo was allowed at all, so first off, thanks for the flex in allowing it.August 7, 2008 at 10:13 pm #18422
Yeah, that allowance wasn’t without controversy, honestly, but yeah, judgment calls…. To try to be more clear or find where the line is, in sclark’s, it looks theatrical and set up, while the bloody fish is obviously not. The bloody fish reminds me more of the dead cat picture, whereas sclark’s reminds me more of fake movie blood that everyone knows is fake. There have been screen caps posted to Fark of movie scenes with fake blood (within reason).August 7, 2008 at 10:21 pm #18423
OK, but if the description on the same bloody hand photo had said “the knife slipped while I was cutting lettuce and I couldn’t resist taking this shot before I went to the ER because it looked like some horror movie set” it would have been disallowed? Because then we’re not judging the shot on the substance of the shot but rather the text that accompanies it. What if there had been no descriptive text?August 7, 2008 at 10:28 pm #18424
It looked fake to me, but the mention of it being fake didn’t hurt. I’ve also seen people label other images to be clear when there’s a chance they’ll be taken as something else. That’s not unique to Farktography; I’ve seen it in random threads.August 7, 2008 at 10:51 pm #18425
Let me turn it around…tell me where you’d draw the line? Maybe I have blinders on. These judgment calls are hard to make, because so often someone, somewhere gets upset at the direction of the call.
It’s hard to be both consistent and flexible. Which of course makes me want to make things more black and white and less open to gray–e.g. ok, we shoudln’t allow anything remotely resembling blood or dead animals because it’s too easy to apply judgement calls inconsistently and I’d rather apply them consistently than flexibly. Fewer mistakes that way.
So on the continuum between flexible and consistent, real blood or Halloween, truly dead or merely pining for the fjords, where should we put the line?August 7, 2008 at 11:13 pm #18426
Well, see, I don’t have a ready answer to that. I don’t think we want murder victims, but I don’t think that a found scene from nature is necessarily something that should be disallowed, either, just because one fish has been washed clean of blood by a stream and one hasn’t. Death for humor, no. Clubbing a baby seal and taking a picture of it, no. Hunting trophy picture of a boy and the deer he shot? sure, why not. Fake gore? You betcha. Emo kid arm cutting? Nope, and a referral to a shrink. Rare steak? No problem. Tiger eating a steak in the zoo? OK. Lion eating a zebra in the field? You bet. Eagle eating a piece of fish? Sure. Kid with fish & chips from a vendor on the beach? Sure. Sea Gull eating drowned child shark victim? Probably not. Dead cat swung on a string to represent “can’t swing a dead cat around here” cliche? Not so much. Australian aborigine throwing a boomerang for dinner and the cassowary he killed? Sure thing.August 8, 2008 at 12:12 am #18427
Well, see, I don’t have a ready answer to that.
And that’s really the problem. I don’t think anyone has much of a ready answer, and there will almost certainly be judgment calls to be made. Your list might work for a certain percentage of people, but it also won’t work for a certain percentage of people. Among the things you listed as ok by you, but that for sure get deleted on Fark: the hunting trophy picture of someone with the deer they bagged (which would also probably apply to the cassowary shot) and probably the lion eating the zebra (depending on how gory it is).
The Fark posting rules themselves say this:
Graphic image content: Images that would make most viewers feel ill, upset, or uncomfortable. This includes but is not limited to: cadavers, autopsies, surgeries, vomiting, severed limbs, alarming deformities, dead animals, extreme body modifications, torture, and bodily functions are not to be posted in the threads. Images that depict graphic content will be deleted. Images containing child pornography will be reported to the appropriate local and Federal law enforcement agencies. The use of images depicting well-known tragedies such as 9/11 is not forbidden – but is generally frowned upon. Images which depict people actually dying (falling to their death, being killed in various ways – e.g. shot, maimed/tortured, etc.) should never be posted or linked to. The same holds true for such images involving animals.
Which really suggests that dead animals shouldn’t be depicted, blood or no. They might also suggest that sclark’s image might not be kosher since it looks close enough to blood to make some people ill, upset or uncomfortable (I guess the key words there are “most viewers”, but that could still apply in this case). Now “no dead animals” notwithstanding, I’m not sure that would really prohibit your feasting eagle; it actually looks less gory to me than the bloody salmon in the stream.August 8, 2008 at 3:18 am #18428andyofneParticipant
The bloody hand photo made me uncomfortable.August 8, 2008 at 4:23 am #18429
Then I think that probably was a bad call on my part.August 8, 2008 at 5:05 am #18430
see I’m often in favor of art that makes the viewer uncomfortable. I think that can be the purpose of an art piece. Whether fark is the appropriate location for that, I have a feeling I know the answer.August 8, 2008 at 5:09 am #18431
Yeah, that’s what it really comes down to. Personally, I’m not bothered or offended or grossed out by dead animals or blood or gore. But enough people are (or couldn’t look at that stuff at work) that Fark puts the kabosh on it.August 8, 2008 at 5:30 am #18432Choc-Ful-AParticipant
Then I think that probably was a bad call on my part.
I started to post this and deleted it 3 times but finally decided it needed to be said.
A moderator charged with interpreting fuzzy guidelines to approve or deny contest entries is guaranteed to make decisions that someone thinks is wrong almost every time. So it’s a no-win situation by definition and some amount of frustration is inevitable. The best someone in that role can hope for is to gain the respect of the community members so that when he/she makes a call people accept the decision and move on.
Elsinore has done a wonderful job as a moderator who is also a very active participant in the contests and the forums. I’m sure there’s also some secret ninja mods helping making the magic work silently in the background. I appreciate their efforts as well. But serving as the public face of the administrative bits of a community takes it to another level. So I appreciate the work, even with an occasional “bad call” to prove you’re human. Thanks. 🙂August 8, 2008 at 6:01 am #18433
Thanks, Choc-Ful-A, I appreciate that. I do want to be clear that it’s understandable to have some questioning of where the line is, especially where there are gray areas. Ultimately, people just want to know what’s expected/acceptable/etc, and I’m comfortable with that (and if my tone came across edgy, earlier, I apologize–it wasn’t intended as such). Soosh certainly wasn’t disrespectful, and probably all the moderators have made bad calls at one time or another (and probably will again, I’m sure 😉 ). But I do take it seriously if I screw something up, and if there’s a way to rectify it and/or prevent it in the future, I’m there.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.