Erin Koski wrote:
And yet, i believe everyone here does understand the basics.

Well, obviously not everyone, there seems to be a specific group that doesn't even understand the rules they've created, nor how to apply them  .  .  .  hmmmmmmm, give me a minute, it'll come to me jest which group that might be  .  .  .

SOS

Erin Koski wrote:
--snip--

More than half the recent winners are what I would consider obviously within the rules of the contest.

--snip--

Should not ALL the winners (and even all the entries) obviously meet the rules?

Can you provide examples of some not obviously within the rules? Then explain why they were allowed into the contest.

I believe trying to understand the minds of the mods making these discussion is critical to being able to submit images that do meet the rules, obvious or otherwise.

Erin Koski wrote:
There aren't going to be rules that will enable every image to be either obviously okay or obviously not okay. There are infinite ways a human body can be posed and too many possible borderline images.  So I do think there will be lots of winning images that are borderline, and where the image team will need to review them for acceptability.   But I think your question is a great one.  Let me see what I can do for that.

Another reason I don't want to tell you "here are the 100% rules and if you follow them your image will be allowed 100%" is that I'm just one person on a panel that reviews images and gives input on if it fits the contest rules.  My decision carries some weight, but I'm rarely the one making the final call on if an image is disqualified.  That goes to someone who has been doing this a lot longer than I have.

So I can tell you how I vote, but it doesn't mean following my guidance will result in 100% contest acceptance.  Which is why I highly recommend asking the mod team first about any image that's borderline. 

Here's a recent winning image that is cropped very closely. 
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/386635
If this image were more closely cropped it might not have been allowed. 

Though not the winning image, this one got third place and is also right around the line of what's acceptable for closeness of crop.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/386549

Here is a winning image where the models knees are far apart.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/386377
Genitals are almost entirely or entirely obscured by her leg, so it's acceptable.

Though not the winning image, this one is acceptable because genitals are obscured entirely or almost entirely by pubic hair.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/386337

Though not the winning image, this is acceptable because genitals are not visible.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/386294

Actually looking back, most of the recent images now look to be quite obviously acceptable.  My only point there was for those who have told me in the past that obviously okay images don't win contests... That's all. I know that's not the majority of people reading this, but I have had multiple people express that to me.

I wanted to put together some kind of comparative list of borderline images that did and did not make it into the contest, but there are too many challenges with getting permission from members whose images were disqualified, and it's not my intention to call anyone out for anything.  Maybe I'll have to set up a specific photo shoot just to take borderline images that could be posted as examples.  If anyone wants to volunteer as my model let me know. I'm near Los Angeles.

thank you. This is the sort of examples we need to understand the inner workings of the mods' minds. The rules are extremely subjective, and as an adult, I dislike the notion of asking permission before doing things. I believe rules should be made clear so the average person can readily understand them without asking "Momma, may I?"

Regarding your links. The first does not even show genitalia. We see pubic hair, much like the latter links you provided, just a head on shot for this one. It should never have been in question - new rules or old. Yet here we are calling it borderline to confuse the issue even more.

The second link has the labia revealed. So the question becomes the leg spread and the cropping. Definitely not a spreadie. But go back in this thread and others to see how many images were rejected due to "being too close" that had more thigh showing than this acceptable one. Again, a layer of confusion when simpler rules could apply (to wit: crop no tighter from the top of the knees to the full shoulders" - use mid thigh or whatever more concrete definition to explain the rule). This is what people getting rejected hate the most. Their images being rejected when they cannot clearly see what makes another one acceptable using the same criterion.

The third and fourth should never have been in question since the rules (now) state that the leg rules only applies to visible genitalia. Pubic hair should never be confusing. MM makes the confusion by their non-18+ POTD rule of "pubic area" - 'Also known as the bikini area' and how that definition is applied. This leaves a vacuum between the two contests. One image is too hot for the POTD, yet might be not hot enough for the POTD18+. It has happened before, and will continue to baffle the people trying to enter the contests.

The last image might only be borderline due to what we see is her fingers covering her vagina. Another site "counts her fingers" to decide acceptability. Not sure how MM would deal with this pose if the model was turned towards the camera.

I've advocated a simpler system before in which the people submitting their image just submit it. The mods review and determine if it belongs in the POTD or the POTD18+ (or violates the rules of general MM portfolio). the mods are reviewing all the entries already. A quick vote: POTD, POTD18+, or deletion (with a review of the entrants' portfolio for more 'not allowed' images). Either we are adults are we are not. MM only allows adults memberships. I really wish MM would treat us more like adults than trying to be our nannies. MM can keep their POTD limits and also keep their site rules. Everything in between is for adult viewing, POTD18+. If spreadies are so offensive the delicate minds of those viewing and the little minds behind the screen at MM agree, clamp down on the site rules, not the contests. I realize once the mods at MM make their minds up, it is virtually impossible to get them to see any other solution. This does not mean we need to be silent and accepting about being treated as children.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
I've advocated a simpler system before in which the people submitting their image just submit it. The mods review and determine if it belongs in the POTD or the POTD18+ (or violates the rules of general MM portfolio). the mods are reviewing all the entries already. A quick vote: POTD, POTD18+, or deletion (with a review of the entrants' portfolio for more 'not allowed' images). Either we are adults are we are not. MM only allows adults memberships. I really wish MM would treat us more like adults than trying to be our nannies. MM can keep their POTD limits and also keep their site rules. Everything in between is for adult viewing, POTD18+. If spreadies are so offensive the delicate minds of those viewing and the little minds behind the screen at MM agree, clamp down on the site rules, not the contests. I realize once the mods at MM make their minds up, it is virtually impossible to get them to see any other solution. This does not mean we need to be silent and accepting about being treated as children.

You are making an assumption that the contest mods are competent in what they are supposed to be doing.   I gave up years ago.  I believe with the number of photos submitted every day indicate 99% of the members here feel the same.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
Regarding your links. The first does not even show genitalia. We see pubic hair, much like the latter links you provided, just a head on shot for this one. It should never have been in question - new rules or old. Yet here we are calling it borderline to confuse the issue even more.

There is some labia visible.  That said, if there were no pubic hair at all, it would still be acceptable (borderline) for close crop.  Closer crop and it might not be acceptable.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
The second link has the labia revealed. So the question becomes the leg spread and the cropping. Definitely not a spreadie. But go back in this thread and others to see how many images were rejected due to "being too close" that had more thigh showing than this acceptable one. Again, a layer of confusion when simpler rules could apply (to wit: crop no tighter from the top of the knees to the full shoulders" - use mid thigh or whatever more concrete definition to explain the rule). This is what people getting rejected hate the most. Their images being rejected when they cannot clearly see what makes another one acceptable using the same criterion.

Please link images with more thigh showing that were disqualified. 

Eric212Grapher wrote:
The third and fourth should never have been in question since the rules (now) state that the leg rules only applies to visible genitalia. Pubic hair should never be confusing. MM makes the confusion by their non-18+ POTD rule of "pubic area" - 'Also known as the bikini area' and how that definition is applied. This leaves a vacuum between the two contests. One image is too hot for the POTD, yet might be not hot enough for the POTD18+. It has happened before, and will continue to baffle the people trying to enter the contests.

I might have thought so too, however in the past when I've failed to such images, someone inevitably comes back and claims that because knees are apart and I didn't specifically spell out why it was okay, I must be hypocritical and contradicting myself. I was trying to include examples like this where knees are apart but the image is okay, to head off those arguments.  I would also say some labia is visible in the third image.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
The last image might only be borderline due to what we see is her fingers covering her vagina. Another site "counts her fingers" to decide acceptability. Not sure how MM would deal with this pose if the model was turned towards the camera.

See reason for including this image directly above.  If model were turned to camera, it would depend on how much of her genitals are obscured by her hand/wrist. My guess is a lot would be obscured.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
I've advocated a simpler system before in which the people submitting their image just submit it. The mods review and determine if it belongs in the POTD or the POTD18+ (or violates the rules of general MM portfolio). the mods are reviewing all the entries already. A quick vote: POTD, POTD18+, or deletion (with a review of the entrants' portfolio for more 'not allowed' images). Either we are adults are we are not. MM only allows adults memberships. I really wish MM would treat us more like adults than trying to be our nannies. MM can keep their POTD limits and also keep their site rules. Everything in between is for adult viewing, POTD18+. If spreadies are so offensive the delicate minds of those viewing and the little minds behind the screen at MM agree, clamp down on the site rules, not the contests. I realize once the mods at MM make their minds up, it is virtually impossible to get them to see any other solution. This does not mean we need to be silent and accepting about being treated as children.

We don't have desire or intention to alter the site rules.  The contest was "cleaned up" based on feedback from membership who wanted a contest that focused more on artistic merit and less on spreads.  As opposed to the frequency of spread shots that used to be in the contest daily. Eg:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … ups/220921
Our system also is not set up to have the process you mention of having users just submit images and have mods decide which contest they belong in.  That would take us significantly more time than we take now, where we review all the images, but only those that appear not to meet the rules, or are borderline are brought up for specific discussion and detailed review.  Obvious images do not need us to do anything.  It also would not take into consideration a situation where a member submits 3 images (assuming one for the POTD, one for Female 18+ and one for Male 18+) and then it turns out that 2 are mature female images.  Meaning we'd have to figure out what to do with two submissions for one contest.  Our system just is not set up for that kind of thing and isn't going to be. 

I'm all for ideas to improve things, but don't see that we're going to make any changes that require coding right now, or any significant changes to the rules, as right now the rules do make sense to the mod team.  I'm doing my best to explain them, and apologize for any deficiency in my explanation. 

I understand many do not want to run stuff by us prior to submitting.  In that case I can recommend submitting images that are very clearly acceptable.  Or not participating in the contests.  But not submitting images where a model's knees are far apart, wider than her shoulders, or the image is cropped very close or he/she is leaning back or otherwise putting crotch closer to camera than face.   Those are the most common reasons for DQ.  If you are someone who wants to participate but doesn't want to ask mods first, avoid those types of images and select other types for the contest.  That's my best recommendation.

Erin Koski wrote:
There is some labia visible.  That said, if there were no pubic hair at all, it would still be acceptable (borderline) for close crop.  Closer crop and it might not be acceptable.

We've clearly have had different anatomy courses or eye doctors.

Erin Koski wrote:
Please link images with more thigh showing that were disqualified.

Not an easy task since most of the poster providing a link have removed their images following a brow beating for being DQ'd
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19972664

Erin Koski wrote:
I would also say some labia is visible in the third image.

again... We've clearly have had different anatomy courses or eye doctors.

Erin Koski wrote:
We don't have desire or intention to alter the site rules.

sad.

Erin Koski wrote:
The contest was "cleaned up" based on feedback from membership who wanted a contest that focused more on artistic merit and less on spreads.  As opposed to the frequency of spread shots that used to be in the contest daily.

MM mods reacted to a small vocal group. If you had taken votes on whether the membership found merit in spreadies over what others refer to artistic, you might have concluded a different feedback response. I know it might be difficult to tally the votes of the membership, but perhaps the mods could have used the actual POTD18+ contest vote tallies... clearly indicating the membership preferred spreadies in some cases.

Some of us managed to eek out first place without submitting spreadies, and on those days the votes reflected the daily view of the membership. Some days spreadies; some day not. Personally I'm more proud of my wins before this silly rule change. I had to compete against spreadies, yet managed a first place finish. Now a win is like tying a wagon laiden with rocks to Secretariat and having your mule run faster - WIN! Mules are faster than a triple crown winner.

What I still find amusing is that the mods claim their DQ'd is not about artistic merit when clearly they are DQ'ing images they are deeming less artistic because they are spreadies.

I've gone round and round on how the mods decided to define a spreadie. Rather than talking about visible labia minora, they concocted these leg and cropping rules. Under the rules, a closed labia majora can be DQ'd because of a knee kicked up, or as shown above, some mod thinks they saw a bit more than everyone else when the image is cropped at some undefined point along the leg somewhere between the knee and upper thigh, but we can't know unless a group of mods debate it behind closed curtains and send up white smoke through the chimney.

I believe you are attempting to defend an indefensible st of rules. Valiant attempts, but still coming up short because, well, those rules are quite lacking:
• The voters were telling MM they preferred some spreadies on some days, but a small group of people decided they know what is and isn't artistic better than others. The voters' opinion does not matter.
• Cropping guideline are vague and quite subjective. It takes a group of mods discussing in private to reach a verdict whether to DQ or not to DQ the image. Here millimeters count, unless the mods just decide that image doesn't show enough leg.
• Spreadies are deemed not artistic merit because the mods do not judge on artistic merit, just the rules which define artistic merit of a small vocal group, not the clear expression of the voters.
• The mods have dug in their heels and no rational, logical counterpoint will change the decree to ban spreadies by talking about what is being spread... i.e., that is not the labia minora, but knees. We do not like knees being apart. It's the knees! Ban the bow-legged women for POTD18+ cannot have bow-legged women. Adult eyes are too delicate for such wide kneed women. smh.

Erin Koski wrote:
I also agree with you that a lot of people "liked" these images by voting for them and making them the winners. 

Does it mean the change was bad?  I would argue no.  I would assume Pornhub is a lot more popular a website (gets more traffic/members) than MM.  But it doesn't mean we want pornography on MM.  The in-your-face open-leg shots are the most we allow on this site, and at some point we decided we wanted the contest to not include those kinds of images.

To me, anytime you censor the people's choice, you are doing bad. If MM allows these images in portfolios, they ought to be allowed in the POTD18+ contest. If MM does not want the contest to reflect the portfolio content, clean up the portfolios!

Dang, you went there. Calling spreadie pornography? Really? Do you actually believe MM tolerates pornography on its website? Not only have we had different anatomy lessons, but we are using two entirely different dictionaries. Any sense of communication is lost - words no longer have meaning here at MM.

JT99 wrote:
Out of the first 150 POTD18+ winners, In increasing order of "graphicness" (my opinion):
* Spread-legged: 45%
* Entire vulva visible: 37%
* Entire anus visible: 8%
* Erect clitoris: 9%
* Vaginal interior visible: 3%
* Fluids visible: 1%

My background is in math:
45%+37+8+9+3+1=103%
That leaves a negative 3% for breast only shots. Round off errors can account for this but only in an improbable way.
You may have been double accounting for some spread-legged entire vulva seen with fluids and an erect clitoris.
As someone who knows stats, you know the phrase, "There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians."

Regardless if every first place finish was a spreadie, it was what the voters wanted to cast their votes for. The high and mighty prudish types have decreed adults are not fit to chose what they want.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
That leaves a negative 3% for breast only shots. Round off errors can account for this but only in an improbable way.
You may have been double accounting for some spread-legged entire vulva seen with fluids and an erect clitoris.
As someone who knows stats, you know the phrase, "There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians."

Yes, I was double (or triple, or quadruple...) counting.  At least one photo had every category, and around 55% didn't have any of the items I mentioned.

Though it is true that 42% of all stats are made up on the fly

JT99 wrote:

Yes, I was double (or triple, or quadruple...) counting.  At least one photo had every category, and around 55% didn't have any of the items I mentioned.

Though it is true that 42% of all stats are made up on the fly

55%? It is interesting that a majority were considered not too explicit, yet the mods felt compelled to respond to the cries of a smaller minority with more puritan attitudes.

42%? I heard the number was approximately 41.7293%, and making up numbers on the back of a fly is rather difficult to do.

Erin Koski 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.

This is a little like a subset of the main site rules. Some rules are really critical, such as member safety, and you'll get removed for even one time breaking that rule. But others are less critical, for example uploading an image of a non flaccid penis to your portfolio. Generally people get some warnings,  then a notice that if they continue,  they'll be removed from the site.

The contest points system is designed to be like that, but more generous (not some 3-strikes & you're out or similar), and to try to treat everyone the same, with the same points for particular infractions,  and the same consequences at the same points levels hit. With removal from the contests taking place at 100 points. The thought process is, if you still submit images that break rules and have 100 points, it's unlikely you are going to stop submitting ineligible images and/ or do not care about the rules.

When i first read your comment about how maybe paying members should not be subject to the points system, my first thought was:  I pay my taxes, but I still am subject to road rules and speeding tickets. Paying for something doesn't mean there is no punishment for breaking rules.

I've had my own images disqualified from the contests a couple times. Before i became a mod. The experience was unpleasant, but in an effort to avoid such again, I tailored my submissions to be on the safe side.

Oh, regarding your question about resubmitting after an image is disqualified,  that would require additional coding to the site and I don't think we are going to be adding more complexity right now. We have people who work on bugs or things that are broken but I'm not aware of resources for additional functionality that isn't here now. I wish we had more options in that area.

Yesterday's contest had 12 entries so I can't image it would "tax" the moderators too much to just remove images that did not meet the "rules." Speaking of taxes, yes you have to pay taxes because it is not an option, joining a site such as this is discretionary and you would think customer service might be something the site may excel in but I guess not.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
55%? It is interesting that a majority were considered not too explicit, yet the mods felt compelled to respond to the cries of a smaller minority with more puritan attitudes.

Well, I only did the first 150.  Small sample size and all that.  Scanning the next 1000 or so could give a much different answer!  But that would take quite a while and I figured I'd only do so if it was actually useful.

It may be that people caught on that spread-legged, open-vagina shots would make a win more likely and so increased the frequency of those submissions as time went along.  Also, I DIDN'T look at how often a spread-legged shot lost to one that wasn't.  Some contests may simply have lacked one and that might have been a better thing to check.

I scanned the first 150 of the men's 18+ archive and found pretty much the same thing: lots of spread-legged shots with prominent genitals and/or anus, and more than a few where the models appeared at least semierect.  The larger and more visible their penises, the more likely they were to win, it seemed.  Again, some of these I felt had legitimate artistic merit and deserved a win, and I would not have omitted them simply because of the pose, genitals or framing, but not all.

(And, anecdotally, the photos in my own profile where my genitals are most prominent are currently my most popular ones.  I guess that's just reality.)

Al Vandever wrote:
I get so fed up with the daily contests

I do too.

Erin Koski wrote:
Your image was disqualified because anus is visible in the image.  This is a disqualification per 18+ contest rules.  The other images you have linked have visible labia but not anus.

In order to see the anus in the photo I had to run the brightness up to maximum and lower the resolution of one of my monitors. And at that point it was so grainy I had to use my imagination.

Just a note to all members, the best way to deal with censorship of this magnitude is to stop entering the contests. Just boycott them completely.

Znude! wrote:
In order to see the anus in the photo I had to run the brightness up to maximum and lower the resolution of one of my monitors. And at that point it was so grainy I had to use my imagination.

Just a note to all members, the best way to deal with censorship of this magnitude is to stop entering the contests. Just boycott them completely.

I tried to zoom in on the image to see if I could see what the mods saw, but all I got was noise and pixelation. In regard to manipulating the brightness, I tried that to no avail either. It's not uncommon though for the image evaluators to see things that the members don't. I would think that if an image has to be adjusted so as to be unrecognizable in an effort to determine contest entries that exhibit or appear to exhibit prohibited items that the removal of those images should be without penalty.

Al Vandever wrote:
I don't know how many times I've had my work turned down for the daily contests and now it's happened again! Unless you ask, the administration doesn't bother to notify you why or even that they've rejected your shot, it simply never appears. I've been told a model wearing lingerie is implied nude and therefore it violates the contest rules. I've been told a shadow caused by the collar of a shirt is a nipple, a model wrapped in non-see-through fabric is considered implied nude. I was told a bodyscape of a torso is against the rules even after I pointed out a very similar shot they ran the day before. And now it's happened again; a full-length nude shot by natural light I posted to the daily contest 4 days ago. It never appeared, no reason why, not even a notification that it didn't appear, nothing.

It really is aggravating![

Erin Koski wrote:
Your image was disqualified because anus is visible in the image.  This is a disqualification per 18+ contest rules.  The other images you have linked have visible labia but not anus.

There are multiple problems with that explanation: the first is that exact image has appeared in that exact contest twice before (within the last six months) without any mention of disqualification for any reason  .  .  .  secondly, when the disqualification was first presented this time (it's third appearance) it was supposedly based on overly exposed genitals, when I challenged that inane ruling a certain nameless Mod came back and then said it was based on an overly exposed anus  .  .  .  thirdly, based on the position of the model and the shadowed area between her butt cheeks no part of her anus is visible and is certainly in no way the focal point of the image (isn't her tattoo beautifully done)  .  .  .  I think I may have located the Mod's problem though  .  .  .
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht … B0AAAAAEAY
.  .  .  it's probably fairly difficult to know who's anus you're viewing from that position!

SOS

Al Vandever wrote:
... And now it's happened again; a full-length nude shot by natural light I posted to the daily contest 4 days ago. It never appeared, no reason why, not even a notification that it didn't appear, nothing.

It is our policy to only remove images with notification so if you have an image submitted and it didn't appear, please reach out to mods so we can investigate the problem.

sospix wrote:

There are multiple problems with that explanation: the first is that exact image has appeared in that exact contest twice before (within the last six months) without any mention of disqualification for any reason  .  .  .  secondly, when the disqualification was first presented this time (it's third appearance) it was supposedly based on overly exposed genitals, when I challenged that inane ruling a certain nameless Mod came back and then said it was based on an overly exposed anus  ...

I did note that image once in the past 12 months and it wasn't the same identical image, it was not as brightly exposed as your submission a few days ago.  The earlier image was so dark we could not make out what we are now able to see without any real tweaking or editing.  Maybe my monitor is naturally brighter than yours is.

I didn't spot the second time it was submitted (out of the three you mention) but I've had some health issues and work issues this week so maybe that's why.  But I'm guessing both allowed images were the darker version.

Fall River Photo wrote:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/387327

Knees significantly wider than shoulders. Labia majora clearly visible. But second place by two votes among today's winners in POTSD 18+.

Disqualifications are clearly arbitrary, inconsistent, and subject to some other factors than the rules/guidelines being quoted.

I think the boycott (not just my own withdrawal out of frustration) is a reasonable response.

Yours,
Bill

Hi Bill,
From your perspective it may seem that we are "arbitrary, inconsistent and subject to other factors than the rules", but I can assure you, we are none of those things. We go through great efforts to be as fair as possible. Please keep in mind that all you see are the images that you have had removed, and the images that remain in the contest. You do not see all the other images we remove from other participants. So, your conclusion is based on very limited information.

You have had only one image removed from the contest due to the new (not really so new any more) rules.
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/contest/ … 84-big.jpg

Compare that to the image that you claim "Labia majora clearly visible".
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/contest/ … 27-big.jpg

Which of those images show labia majora more clearly?

I will admit that your image was a close call, and in fact the other image was a close call as well. Your image was a close call because the knees are only slightly wider than shoulders. The other image is a close call because Labia isn't really as clearly visible as you say it is.

Your image was very close to being left in the contest, we felt it was just slightly over the line. The other image was very close to being removed, we felt it was just barely okay.

But in your mind there was some "arbitrary and inconsistent" injustice done here, which just isn't true.

No matter where we set the limits, there will always be images that are close to the line, some will be just over the line, and some just under it.

The best way to avoid these issues is to ask about images before submitting them, especially if you're unsure.
We're here to help, when we can.

Another good way to avoid this issue is to just only submit images to the Women's contest that don't show genitals at all.

Some recent and good examples of that.
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/contest/ … 71-big.jpg
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/contest/ … 76-big.jpg
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/contest/ … 98-big.jpg
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/contest/ … 80-big.jpg
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/contest/ … 82-big.jpg

Erin Koski wrote:
I did note that image once in the past 12 months and it wasn't the same identical image, it was not as brightly exposed as your submission a few days ago.  The earlier image was so dark we could not make out what we are now able to see without any real tweaking or editing.  Maybe my monitor is naturally brighter than yours is.

Incorrect, it's the exact same image, no further editing has been done to it since the first two times it appeared in the contest  .  .  .  it was one of my "safe" entries, or so I thought  .  .  .  perhaps you (collectively) should either have your monitors recalibrated, or undergo a group eye examination  .  .  .

SOS

Mod 7 (Cust. Svc.) wrote:
--snip--
Another good way to avoid this issue is to just only submit images to the Women's contest that don't show genitals at all.
--snip--

time to rename POTD18+ to POTD-PG13

Everyone at MM is supposed to be 18 or older, yet the mods insist on treating us all like adolescents.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
Erin,

what are your thoughts on this one?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/387461

I'm surprised we didn't discuss this one.  I see it was earlier in the week, and I've been having some health issues so that may be why I didn't catch it.  My feedback is that I would be slightly inclined to disqualify for legs being wider than shoulders.  It's pretty close to the line between acceptable and too much for the contest.  I have provided this feedback to the team and we'll see if they agree or disagree.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
Erin,

what are your thoughts on this one?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/387461

We have decided to remove it. Somehow, it got overlooked. Thanks

Eric212Grapher wrote:
Erin,
what are your thoughts on this one?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/387461

Erin Koski wrote:
I'm surprised we didn't discuss this one.  I see it was earlier in the week, and I've been having some health issues so that may be why I didn't catch it.  My feedback is that I would be slightly inclined to disqualify for legs being wider than shoulders.  It's pretty close to the line between acceptable and too much for the contest.  I have provided this feedback to the team and we'll see if they agree or disagree.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Mod 7 (Cust. Svc.) wrote:
We have decided to remove it. Somehow, it got overlooked. Thanks

Perhaps I should have been more clear why I posted the link to the forum versus CAM. It wasn't to have the image removed from a completed contest. It was to show that even a team of mods reviewing images can make a mistake in regards to the "legs spread" rule, yet the mods expect perfection from the people submitting images to the contest, lest the dreaded points be added and never retracted.

By removing it, you now have an excellent example of "slightly inclined to disqualify for legs being wider than shoulders" no longer available for the contestants to see where the line might fall. Everyone is left to guess where the line would be for "slightly inclined to qualify for legs being within shoulders" had those legs been millimeters closer together.

We can only learn where the mods draw these lines by seeing examples of ones within the limits and those running afoul of the limits. Legs spread and too close are entirely too vague to know. the suggestion to submit waist-up shots is not helpful at all.

Znude! wrote:

In order to see the anus in the photo I had to run the brightness up to maximum and lower the resolution of one of my monitors. And at that point it was so grainy I had to use my imagination.

Just a note to all members, the best way to deal with censorship of this magnitude is to stop entering the contests. Just boycott them completely.

Hear hear!

Znude! wrote:
Just a note to all members, the best way to deal with censorship of this magnitude is to stop entering the contests. Just boycott them completely.

Considering how many active members there are using MM standards, I'd say 99.999% of those members are already boycotting the contests.