|
I was not immediately subject to any punishment, suspensions or similar. It was a chance to learn and open dialogue (if I chose) about how to submit images that won't be disqualified. Permanent suspension from the contests is after 100 points have been accumulated. This, in my personal opinion, is sufficient time to either figure out what types of images are acceptable to enter or just submit images ahead of time through Contact a Moderator, so you don't incur 100 total points. I see not much has changed since my last "banning" several months ago . . . I have tried as much as possible to "learn" how to avoid disqualification of my images according to the stated (ever changing) rules, which, as I slowly dip my toes back into the contests, are still being applied unevenly (a quick comparison of images that have been banned and those which are allowed to compete in both the POTD and POTD18+ contests make that glaringly apparent), and with little to no plausible explanation when questioned (so much for "open dialogue" with those in charge of dolling out "points" and suspensions) . . . as to "figuring out" how to comply, just the fact that attempted participation is described in that manner is a sad state of affairs, doesn't it make it more sense to have capable Mods that make and understand their own rules run the contests, wouldn't that be refreshing . . . I wish you luck in avoiding the dreaded points accumulation if you do actually participate in the contests, I'm almost "shooting" my age (72) at the current time, I'm not sure which will reach the century mark first! "Pre submitting" certainly isn't the answer, if an image is deemed to not comply, just remove it from the submissions and give a brief (very brief) explanation of the reasoning behind the removal, I'm still waiting for that explanation on the last 3 or 4 of my banned images (in both contests), dolling out "demerits" and suspensions is beyond juvenile . . . I'm guessing you're new to the "Mod" game, good luck and I hope you are more capable than what we're currently dealing with! SOS Dec 09 23 09:39 am Link This is an interesting contrast from a few years ago, where the winners of the 18+ contests were almost always full frontal nudity with shaven pubis. Dec 09 23 09:56 am Link Actually I've been an image mod on the contests for a very long time now (at least 2015). So sorry, you're still stuck with (mostly) the same team. If you want to point me to images that you feel are blatantly inconsistent in rules, I can try to give you information about why the ones that were okay were okay and why the ones that were not, were not. I'm a person who keeps track of the images the image team discussed in detail and the outcome for each image. So when a current image is being discussed, I can look back through all the previously discussed images and try to give feedback on the current question, that is consistent with how we've treated others before it. What I think most do not realize is that if an image is removed from the contest, there are steps we have to take to document it, and all that takes time. So reviewing the images in advance allows us to give feedback without a lot of extra work. This is the reason we have a system that punishes repeated entries that go against the rules. Every contest entry we have to remove takes up a lot of time that we'd rather not waste. And no, not much has changed since several months ago. The last big rule-change we had was a year ago, December 2022. This was when we changed to disallow shots where legs are very open and genitals very visible. In an attempt to "clean up" the contests and make them less about crotch shots and more about tasteful nudes. We gave people time to get familiar with the new rules before points were given, but that was 12 months ago and this is where we're at now. We expect people to be able to submit images that fit within the rules. If you find your images are getting disqualified, I encourage you to submit images with less open legs, less close crop, and/or genitals less visible (depending on what your DQs are for). Dec 09 23 12:15 pm Link Erin Koski wrote: Dec 09 23 06:32 pm Link Seems I'm not even allowed to access the "offending" image from the other thread . . . amazing! Dec 09 23 06:46 pm Link The URL has been copied incomplete. You can copy it in it's complete form but it may take a few more steps. I went through and read the notes from when this image was disqualified and reviewed the image. Though you say the model does not have an open leg pose, her knees are quite wide apart, which is part of what we judge on. You also say no genitals are even visible, so it seems you do not consider the outer labia to be genitals. But they most certainly are genitals, by common definitions. In fact, the mons pubis is too, though we don't consider that in our review of whether or not an image has an emphasis on genitals. We do consider the outer/major labia when we are reviewing whether or not a woman's genitals are visible. https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/women … tal-organs I will also note that although you say a moderator was gleeful in telling you that you had broken the rules, you actually just received our template response any time someone has an increase in points that results in a suspension. You reacted in a way I would call very aggressive and rather than simply ask what was wrong with the image, made some pretty harshly worded accusations and resorted to slinging insults. I believe this is why the moderator who was responding to you was not more eloquent or clarifying, as your response had been quite hostile. I will do my best to explain if I can, and hope we can do so in a civil manner. Dec 09 23 08:33 pm Link Erin Koski wrote: Miss L is positioned so as to make her viewpoint from the side, not straight on, her legs are not spread to the camera in any way, and the "genitals" you say are exposed were no where near at the level of exposure of said genitals by several other images included in the same daily contest the image was to be in (as noted in the dialogue of the ongoing conversation in the other thread) . . . the Mod in question responded directly after I questioned the ruling, and was less than cordial in every response (and provided no explanation at all), I only responded in kind . . . as to defending my work, I will always do that in any situation, and as to being civil and eloquent, I am both until pushed not to be, you may want to have your fellow Mods try and follow that tact in their interactions with those who participate in the site and expect to be treated in kind . . . simple and concise explanations would be much more welcome than the adversarial diatribe that is currently the norm . . . it's a shame that a site that used to be so vibrant, energized and provided intelligent interaction for a wide variety of creatives has driven so many from it's ranks . . . hopefully that situation can be remedied . . . Dec 11 23 10:52 pm Link Just a quick review of some of the recent winners in the POTD18+ contest would seem to fly in the face of your explanation . . . the winners of the November contests from the 24th and 26th, as well as the winners from December's contests on the 2nd and 3rd, all have the same labia you state make images inadmissible in the contests in full view . . . https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/384831 https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/384813 https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/384612 https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/384544 . . . as well as this image that was also accepted into the contest . . . https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/383819 . . . confusing ain't it! Keep in mind I'm of the opinion that all of these images are deserving winners and participants, and I applaud the efforts of each of the artists who created them . . . but, each makes the uneven management of the contests all the more glaring . . . care to clear that up for those of us attempting to participate in a participatory site! Once again here is the image I attempted to have included in the POTD18+ contest . . . https://photos.modelmayhem.com/contest/ … 4yLjAuMA.. . . . it appears to be the least "showy" of the lot! SOS Dec 12 23 07:59 am Link sospix wrote: It balances out. Here's a photo submission that was rejected. Dec 12 23 09:25 am Link sospix wrote: Thank you for the image links. I did not say that genitals could not be visible. Your image was disqualified because we have a rule against open leg images and your model has her knees far apart. I understand that she is not straight-on to the camera, but the knees are too far apart of our contest, considering genitals are also visible. Dec 12 23 12:17 pm Link Erin Koski wrote: So, now your explanation is that if Miss L's pubic hair were not shaved clean, that the image would have been deemed acceptable, is that correct? Also, your explanation and accompanying image shows that knees being apart (even if directed directly towards the viewer) is not a cause for rejection, is that also correct? Just trying to get some specific guidelines in place to go by, instead of the very vague set that are currently up . . . based on the new and improved information, how is it possible to have an image such as this as part of any of the contests . . . Dec 14 23 08:11 am Link rxz wrote: Mind bending, ain't it . . . Dec 14 23 08:21 am Link rxz wrote: We do not consider artistic merit when determining if an image is allowable for the contest. If the image is largely a picture of a person's bare crotch (or multiple crotches), it won't be allowable in the contests. Dec 14 23 08:51 am Link sospix wrote: Feel free. I hope others will use such a thread to get a better idea of what we disallow, so you can instead focus on submitting images that do meet the contest rules. Dec 14 23 08:56 am Link sospix wrote: Yes, if Miss L's genitals were not visible (covered by pubic hair or panties or her hand or something else that was part of the original image and not photoshopped on afterwards) then the image would be allowable. sospix wrote: The first image is not unlike the images we allow in the women's contests - legs closed, genitals are visible. Similar to the images you previously linked from the women's contest. Closed legs and not too closely zoomed in = okay. This whole rule change 1 year ago was to try to reduce the number of images submitted as hugely open-leg shots. Dec 14 23 09:14 am Link Erin Koski wrote: My image is LARGELY a side view of 2 female nude TORSOS. Dec 14 23 10:00 am Link You're free to converse with whoever you wish. The crotches take up more image real estate than we allow for in our contest. I'm sorry if my language did not make that point clearly. I did not get enough sleep last night and am trying to help. Dec 14 23 10:22 am Link PS I don't think you're a loser for having an image disqualified. TY for the ego boost, I certainly don't identify with the term "loser" in any way, and being disqualified from the contests on this site isn't likely to change that . . . jest makin' a point, that may be something to consider by fellow would be contest participants that had worthy images rejected out of hand under the current system . . . or perhaps to streamline the entire contest process by creating a specific list of 7 (10, 12 . . . whatever works) "deadly sins" that would make an image unacceptable, simply notify the submitter with the accompanying "sin" number, remove it from consideration, and ask that they try again with a different image at a later date . . . it seems that those who run and administer the contests have made them overly complicated (you mentioned earlier that you and your compatriots have become overwhelmed with the administration of the contests and the constant need to explain rulings of the very murky current rules, and accompanying explanations of the rulings after they've been rendered) . . . that would also eliminate the juvenile practice of awarding demerits and expulsions . . . these contests used to be a wonderful way to connect with fellow inhabitants of the site and discuss the images that had been submitted, now it's devolved into a constant battle between those attempting to interact and those hell bent on stopping that participation . . . of course, I'm jest one more "old fart" harkening back to better times, may be time to head back to the cave for the winter . . . Dec 19 23 10:58 am Link Yes, if Miss L's genitals were not visible (covered by pubic hair or panties or her hand or something else that was part of the original image and not photoshopped on afterwards) then the image would be allowable. sospix wrote: And a welcome change it was, no need to turn this into a pseudo porn site, there's enough sites to delight those seeking that out! Dec 19 23 11:32 am Link Again, this image seems to fly in the face of every explanation you've given previously . . . https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/385421 . . . the model's knees are clearly wider than her shoulders, and her genitals are clearly visible . . . I might also state that I voted for it in the contest . . . SOS Dec 19 23 11:37 am Link Erin Koski wrote: rxz wrote: We do not consider artistic merit when determining if an image is allowable for the contest. Dec 19 23 11:45 am Link sospix wrote: Otherwise people would just complain that we removed their image out of unfairness or a subjective, personal bias. So we're trying to avoid that as much as possible. We only remove based on the contest image rules and artistic merit is not part of the rules. sospix wrote: This image appears to have been taken down so I am unable to see it. It does happen sometimes that we don't catch an image that goes against the site rules. When it is discovered or pointed out to us, we will review it at that time and take it down then. We are human and we do sometimes make mistakes. Dec 19 23 04:53 pm Link Otherwise people would just complain that we removed their image out of unfairness or a subjective, personal bias. So we're trying to avoid that as much as possible. We only remove based on the contest image rules and artistic merit is not part of the rules. I mean, we already do have people accuse us of removing for personal bias, but it is not the case. And despite what you mentioned earlier, we are not looking for reasons to disqualify. We are making sure the images fit within the rules of the site. Nice to know that site professing to cater to models and photographers doesn't take artistic merit into consideration . . . Let me know if you can see this. When an image is not obvious, I will literally get my ruler out and measure across the shoulders, and across the knees. In your image, her knees are about 25% wider than her shoulders, which is more than we allow on an image where genitals are also visible. I never said your image was spread eagle. I said an image with close legs is okay, and a spread-eagle image is not okay, so then we have to determine, where is the cut-off point in between these two states? Then I said our cut-off point is knees should roughly be no wider than shoulders. Your image has knees 25% wider than shoulders, which is why it was too much. Obviously you've failed to take into account that Miss L's shoulders are angled back into her right shoulder (an artistic element, which may be the reason for the oversight), if you'd like me to provide you with a true geometric measure of her shoulder width in comparison with the position of your knees, I can provide that, I can assure you your 25% calculation is erroneous . . . Genitals can be visible. If genitals are visible: Crop should not be too close (take a look at what's in the contest and allowed, this usually includes a wide range of allowable crops). Knees should not be too wide (they should be roughly as wide, or less wide than shoulders. Sooooo, again using Miss L's image as an example, were I to crop it above her knees it would then be allowable? sospix wrote: This image appears to have been taken down so I am unable to see it. It does happen sometimes that we don't catch an image that goes against the site rules. When it is discovered or pointed out to us, we will review it at that time and take it down then. We are human and we do sometimes make mistakes. It's a fairly basic business tenet that if you've created something that needs to be explained (or defended) more than once, then it's the creation that needs to be updated and revised, as it is clearly flawed . . . and to continue to defend and explain it is foolhardy at best . . . but, it's "your" toy, play with it as you will, or until there are no other playmates willing to play . . . now, I think I'll crawl back into my cave and take a winter's nap! Dec 20 23 08:41 am Link sospix wrote: There is no rule in the contest about the moderators judging something to be of sufficient artistic quality in order to be in the contest and I doubt there ever will be. If you do not like this, you do not need to participate. sospix wrote: I'm reviewing what was presented for the contest. The low camera angle, putting her shoulders farther away from us, is a negative in terms of this image qualifying for the contest. We generally do also treat images where the model is leaning back (or where the camera angle results in a similar angle as if the model was leaning back) as more likely to be emphasis on genitals (and therefore disqualified). Images where the genitals are not closer to the camera than the model's face, are going to be better suited for the contest. If a higher camera angle results in her knees being 100% as wide as her shoulders, then such an image would not be disqualified for legs being too wide. sospix wrote: No, if you had cropped it higher, her knees would still be too wide. If the genitals are visible, both things need to happen in order for the image to qualify. I am not sure what part of my statement was confusing before. If genitals are visible, then crop should not be too close, and knees should not be too wide. Is that maybe clearer? sospix wrote: We are human beings. If you are do not wish to participate in a contest because fallible humans moderate it, then by all means please do not participate. I am not going to give information out about a member or their conversations with the moderator team, you know that. sospix wrote: I'm trying to impart information, and at some point we may have to give up if you still feel it is not understandable for you. I do believe others have gained some insight from this. sospix wrote: I'm doing my best to explain the way the rules work. It's also not "my" toy. I don't even work here (despite some people thinking this is my "job" and I should do better at it). I'm a volunteer. And I don't mind if you stop playing or participating in the contest. If I'm a fool for trying to help you and others better understand the rules, then so be it. Dec 20 23 10:14 am Link . . . you do not need to participate. Seems to be the standard answer to anything the Mods are unable to sensibly explain . . . We generally do also treat images where the model is leaning back (or where the camera angle results in a similar angle as if the model was leaning back) as more likely to be emphasis on genitals (and therefore disqualified). Hmmmmm, so when you view that particular image your first thought is her genitals are the emphasis of that image . . . I think I'm beginning to understand what the problem has been the whole time . . . "tunnel vision"! No, if you had cropped it higher, her knees would still be too wide. If the genitals are visible, both things need to happen in order for the image to qualify. I am not sure what part of my statement was confusing before. If genitals are visible, then crop should not be too close, and knees should not be too wide. Is that maybe clearer? Soooooo, even if her knees were no longer visible in the image (due to an updated crop) you could still "calculate" where they were positioned, that's an amazing ability! Yep, still clear as mud and getting murkier . . . as de rigueur in this tête-à-têtes, the more you attempt to make sense of the rulings being made, the less sense they make . . . If you are do not wish to participate in a contest because fallible humans moderate it, then by all means please do not participate. Ahhhhh, the "stock" answer raises its bean once more . . . the whole point is that I (and many others) DO want to participate, and simply trying to establish a baseline so as to make that possible, isn't that the whole point of the contests, having site members participate in them? I'm trying to impart information, and at some point we may have to give up if you still feel it is not understandable for you. I do believe others have gained some insight from this. No need to worry Mr E, I seriously doubt you can "speak" beyond my ability to understand your words . . . I too hope others have gained some insight based on the answers you've imparted, although I highly doubt it's along the tact you had intended . . . I'm doing my best to explain the way the rules work. It's also not "my" toy. I don't even work here (despite some people thinking this is my "job" and I should do better at it). I'm a volunteer. And I don't mind if you stop playing or participating in the contest. If I'm a fool for trying to help you and others better understand the rules, then so be it. Perhaps you are, and at least the effort is appreciated . . . the word "my" was in quotes for a purpose, to denote the larger group you're a part of, not you specifically . . . I'm sure it's a thankless "job", in reality the only thing I'm trying to accomplish is to try and get some coherence and consistency to the rulings being handed out, up until now, that is most certainly not the case, and the inane explanations only make it worse (which is why I suggested the "7 Deadly Sins" list, simple, quick, and no room for interpretation) . . . I will or won't continue to participate on my own accord, and being a "fool" is not always a bad thing! Don't feel compelled to respond, I think we may have worn out this topic . . . Dec 21 23 08:08 am Link KenPhoto wrote: That's pretty ridiculous. Dec 21 23 09:17 am Link I did not say that genitals could not be visible. Your image was disqualified because we have a rule against open leg images and your model has her knees far apart. I understand that she is not straight-on to the camera, but the knees are too far apart of our contest, considering genitals are also visible. The more you "explain", the more confusing it gets . . . https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/386007 https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/386028 . . . jest two more examples of the inconsistencies of your "knee measuring device", nicely done as usual! SOS Jan 16 24 08:47 am Link As explained before, there will always be some cut off. Knees together = okay. Knees spread eagle = not okay. So where is the point where it tips from one side to the other? Both of these images fall within the acceptability for me to recommend them to stay in the contest. I'm not generally the one making the final decision, but my review is taken into consideration, along with the reviews of others on the image review team. This does not go against anything I've said previous. I look for images where the knees are about as wide as the shoulders. There is some wiggle room. Cut off is not an even 1:1 ratio and I never said it was. But if knees are a lot wider than shoulders my review will be that it's not eligible for the contest. The first image you have linked is right on the edge of what I'll recommend to stay in the contest. Any wider and I generally recommend disqualification. Jan 16 24 03:17 pm Link Erin Koski wrote: As noted before (on many, many occasions, by many, many people), your (the Mods, not you specifically . . . I know you're sensitive to being singled out), constant inconsistencies are at the heart of the problem . . . the fact that you take very small images and make incremental measurements that are ridiculously inconsistent is what causes all the consternation in dealing with your (the Mods) rulings . . . your final explanation of "any wider" is a perfect example, what measurement would constitute "any wider" in that case and how can you possibly give a precise cut off point . . . in one of my queries about an image of mine that was disallowed I asked if I had cropped the image so the model's knees were not visible would it have been acceptable, and the answer was no, that you somehow could determine how wide the separation was even if it wasn't visible . . . clearly in the second image the model's knees are fairly wide apart, but not visible . . . again, the only consistency in the rulings is how inconsistent they are, all we (the members trying to actually participate in the contests) is that you set some hard and fast rules and stick with them instead of constantly making murky interpretations to suit your whim at any given moment . . . oh, and Happy New Year . . . Jan 17 24 05:30 am Link I don't believe I'm being inconsistent. I think the overall decisions being made are rarely inconsistent. At this point it doesn't seem I can explain it better than I already have. I'm sorry it's been insufficient for you. If you have any new questions or specific images you would like feedback on, feel free to ask and I will do my best to explain. It's all I can do. Jan 17 24 01:51 pm Link sospix wrote: I like your idea. Jan 22 24 04:11 am Link Erin Koski wrote: The point system is ridiculous for paying members. If an image does not fit this site's mind boggling rules (highly inconsistent when you have to constantly defend them)0 then just remove the image. I remember there were close to 100 images a day posted for the contests but as the rules constantly changed many photographers just said it's no longer fun and moved on. Jan 22 24 04:14 am Link Erin Koski wrote: David L. Stevens wrote: Read the first sentence in the moderators reply from this post on Mar 27 2023. It says everything you need to know about the contest content moderation. The rules are intentionally vague. This allows them to subjectively eliminate images. The main reason why so many members no longer participate in these contests? It's impossible to adhere to rules that you are not allowed to know and they simply get fed up. Jan 23 24 05:49 am Link I think this is a fair response: Mod 7 (Cust. Svc.) wrote: It feels simple to come up with "easy" rules, but in practice, there are nearly infinite possibilities of poses that will challenge that easy set of rules and result in either those rules letting in a lot of images with significant emphasis on genitals, or will include too much subjective decision, or will treat different body types too unequally, or have some other challenge. Jan 23 24 09:11 am Link Erin Koski wrote: There are rules all over this site regarding images, rules on avatars, rules on NSFW portfolio images, and rules on what does and does not constitute an acceptable image for portfolio use on MM. There doesn't seem to be very many complaints about these image rules. I wonder if that is because even if someone disagrees with those rules they are still clear, concise, and understandable? The only place that seems to cause heartache seems to be the POTD contests. I wonder if that's because the rules there are intentionally vague and unknowable, as previously admitted to by the moderators. Jan 23 24 12:16 pm Link And yet, i believe everyone here does understand the basics. If you enter a photo with legs together, genitals not closer to camera than face, not closely cropped (meets all other site rules such as no penetration, no erections for male models), it'll be fine. But some I've talked do not want to enter these sorts of images that they know are fine. Instead they want to submit images with legs apart, or really close up, or leaning back to give us a better view of genital area. I'm told if they submit a photo everyone knows meets the rules, it won't get enough votes to win. I am not convinced. https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/240120 https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/240119 https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/240118 More than half the recent winners are what I would consider obviously within the rules of the contest. For those who wish to participate, but do not want the hassle of checking with mods to see if an image meets the rules before submitting, you can always submit photos that clearly meet the rules. I'm trying not to gaslight anyone. There are going to be images that are close to, or right on the border of what's acceptable and what's not. The best way to handle such images is to either avoid submitting them or have them checked first. Jan 23 24 07:38 pm Link Erin Koski wrote: Erin, Jan 24 24 03:37 am Link Erin Koski wrote: And yet, I believe that if what you've said above were true these POTD forum threads would not happen nearly as often as they do. Jan 24 24 06:08 am Link David L. Stevens wrote: I believe the points system is in place to minimize the amount of time the mod team has to spend removing images from the contests. It's fair to say there's a not insignificant amount of digital paperwork and manpower each day on this task for the the three contests. Even paying members are expected to try to follow the contest rules, and a points system gives us a way of tracking that. It also gives our members a way of tracking it. I agree it would be easier for members if they did not have to care, and could just submit whatever and if it doesn't fit the contest they don't have to care. Jan 24 24 10:02 am Link JQuest wrote: The complaints we get are not on images that meet basic requirements I outlined above. They are on images that tend to be right around the line of what's acceptable and what is not. People that argue for their image do not appear to want to tailor their submissions to be well in the safe zone. Some even tell me that can't win the contest with images that don't show the most allowable or close to the most allowable. That's what I believe we are talking about here. Images that are borderline. Similar to images that have been allowed, but with differences that the mod team sees, and the person submitting the image does not. Jan 24 24 10:08 am Link |
I'm thinking of starting a thread where losers such as myself can post the images that were rejected from being in the contests, share the reasoning (if there was any ever given), and the show the "demerits" (and subsequent banning) awarded for even trying to participate . . . might be enlightening to all those contemplating participation . . . 
