"Defining Objectionable..." Topic

Clearly there are pictures that are objectionable as one of Tango's threads got nuked over the weekend.

I find this thread about defining what is objectionable … to be objectionable …

PS--aside from its utter ridiculousness,the most objectionable thing about that figure was the price – $120 USD IIRC.

Personally, I find it objectionable to give whoever filed the original objection the satisfaction of this discussion. The objection was clearly taste-based, after all.

A plain 1/32 figure like that has potential for diorama building, so unless TMP wants to go down the road of banning all WIP and resource threads (say, about Hasslefree's dolly-style nudes), this is not an item where there should even be a discussion.

I'm also going to say that planning a rule about banning "images that are overly violent or promoting victimization" is not a smart call.

One could make the case that any diorama accurately reflecting the realities of certain wars would qualify as 'overly violent'.

Similarly, one could argue that any depiction of a helpless amle prisoner – including bound, but dresses male POWs – 'promote victimization'.

Please don't make stupid rules to get a handle on two completely different problems.

1. Do you wish to allow nudity here?
If so, be prepared to tell people who don't like it and are too lazy to set up their content filters off.

2. Is there any real value in somebody posting any random thing he finds on the internet, irrespective of whether it is in any way news, particularly artistically or historically valuable, or actually related to TMP's common topics by anything more than the vague notion of it being usable in a diorama?
If not, don't try to get a handle on postings, try to get a handle on posters. I am 100% confident that would help reduce the incidence of not-technically-qualified objections like this.

I am late to this discussion, but…

1) 54mm/1:32 is a perfect size for demon types in 28mm armies or scenarios

2) the figure in question suggests early conceptualizations of what Slaanesh was all about in late
'80s Warhammer

3) the model could also be used as scenery for a temple to the fertility goddess

4) with at least three good wargaming connections as listed above, I can see no reason for controversary over whether this figure is aporopriate. It was posted on a board clearly labelled "nude."

Now that we have the hobby-related stuff out of the way, we can move on to the moral stuff. Nudity seems to be a problem for a lot of people. If I read my creation myth right, man was created in God's own image. Woman was created from man, in effect from God's own image. To find the human body objectionable is to find God's own image, and that which was made from God's own image, objectionable. We cover our nakedness because of knowledge of good and evil, the Original Sin. But through baptism we are forgiven the original sin; we do not need to let it have power over us. So, I would expectvonly heathens to find nude bodies objectionable. All of us duly baptized christians should be fine with portrayals of God's own image and thst which was created from such.

I will probably get my first DH from that, but it will be worth it if it happens.

I suppose some day, someone will write the wargame counterpart to Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and we'll get to all the same discussion again about the cover art :-)

For my info (and lack of a memory), isn't the adult filter on by default and you have to opt into the NSFW (which was NMB) board?

The adult filter is on by default.

The NSFW board is also on by default, I believe.

If I remember right TMP stands for the miniatures page…..not the politicaly correct toy soldiers page. Nude miniatures are a staple of the industry and have been for many years. Ral Partha used to have 25mm nudes in their D and D line, a lot of the mini lines for RPGs have nudes, and wargamers running early bronze age armies risk nudes in their rank,and so on. This is a thread dedicated to nudes, if it offends DON'T GO THERE. I am a commission painter so paint more then just toy soldiers. If I want to look at decent nudes I can always go to other sites…that is the rub…forcing people to go to other sites is not good for a website. You have issues just block this thread…still gripe about it maybe Bill should block it for you so you do not offend yourself.

Again this is THE MINIATURES PAGE..not the historicaly correct wargamers page.

This whole discussion is beyond stupid.

Anybody who gets upset by some nudity displayed in minatures but does at the same time gets not upset by the imaginary violence on the wargame table sounds very weird to me.
Why only accept one part as being fun and fantasy?

Oh well, I guess the puritans over here are just trying to invoke yet another of their "shariah-like" laws. It started with renaming the NMB board into NSFW. Which I still consider to be quite idiotic as every board is kind of NSFW. At work, one should be at work and not surfing on the internet. Period.

Oh by the way, I presume the person who made the inital complaint is a .

As a sidenote, I hardly come here anymore, so if you feel the need to dawghouse me Bill, you better do it for several months otherwise it won't affect me at all.

Not my thing but Tango put it on the appropriate board. As it's only a digital preview I wonder how much explicit detail will make in onto the final sculpt.
Storm in a teacup.

The adult filter is on by default.

The NSFW board is also on by default, I believe.

Merci.

So if you are seeing objectionable images, you had to take at least one of two possible deliberate actions.

Actively going to the NSWF board could count as the second.

Quoth Buff Orpington:"Storm in a teacup."

Quite, quite. Make mine Earl Grey, two milks, 3 sugars, please.

When we were younger and Playboy had its Playmate of the Month, a friend of mine was emphatic in that he didn't find anything objectionable to those pictures… regardless what his mom thought of him when she found his stash!

Define objectionable?

That which one objects to. It is an individual reaction and does not apply to communities or societies unless those groups impose an orthodoxy upon their constituent members. Thus, to enforce rules against objectionable utterances, behaviours or ideas is the tyranny of one set or locus of values over a diverse body politic with a wide range of differing values. This moral hierarchy requires a coercive hammer of orthodoxy to enforce conformity with the orthodox ethos. Thus power corrupts the pursuit of good morals. It's ironic, in'nit?

Any objections? I hope so!
Rod Robertson.

It is threads like this that make me want to produce a range of miniatures so eye-wateringly 'objectionable' that they make the High Sparrow, Miss Good Manners and other self appointed guardians of morality squeal in horror and outrage! Keep an eye out for my Sodom and Gomorrah range . . . lol

"Make mine Earl Grey, two milks, 3 sugars, please."

Milk in Earl Grey?

Oh dear, oh dear……

:)

Dear Samnite 308

IS THIS A KICK-STARTER! Where do I sign up to pay my money?

"Milk in Earl Grey?

Oh dear, oh dear……"

Just trying to stir up a little trouble of my own, heh, heh. Bring on the Tea Experts!

Revisiting the original posted link to the allegedly objectionable casting, I find it to be a perfect, even slightly modest and demure, aspect of Hrihyal, the Dancing Maiden, cohort of Dlameleish, who is one of the Ten Gods of Tekumel. see below for the description of Hrihayal borrowed from the "Tekummel--the world of the Petal Throne" website.

Hriháyal, Cohort of Dlamélish

"The Cohort of Dlamélish is Hriháyal : the Dancing Maiden of Temptation, Harlot of the Five Worlds and Mistress of the Thirty-Two Unspeakable Acts. She is the supreme orgiast, patroness of the ancient Mysteries which date back to Bednálljan times, and patroness of gambling. She is pictured as a voluptuous dancing maiden holding a curved dagger; her emblem is a vertical silver oval with a wavy emerald line drawn horizontally through it. She has 34 known Aspects, and perhaps several more venerated by her Inner Temple."

OK, so she needs a curved dagger.
Empire of the Petal Throne (EPT) predates original D&D (the three little books, remember?) produced in 1975 by a major miniatures rules production company--Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). EPT spawned several miniatures rules sets including:

"Missum!" 1978
Author: Gary Rudolph
Rules for miniatures. (A cover for a followup product, Missumdalikoi: Advanced Miniature Rules for Tékumel was printed).

Hordes of the Things
Author: Phil Barker (distant cousin to M.A.R. Barker)
Miniatures rules with army lists for Tékumel.

Qadardalikoi, 1983
Author: Jeff Barry and M.A.R. Barker
Miniatures campaigns on the world of Tékumel

Dragon 6 April 1977
Legions of the Petal Throne Painting Guide M.A.R. Barker, p. 8

Therefore, Your Honor, by associating the casting with a straightforward use with a long, long, longstanding game universe originally published by a cornerstone miniatures rules company (TSR) _and_ following up with ongoing support literature specifically addressing appropriate painting techniques for miniatures associated with said combat rules, I ask the judge to declare my client NOT GUILTY of being Objectionable.

Imho anything that does not incite to behaviour that hurts others is acceptable.

Imho this does not fall under this category.

I can live with people objecting to stuff they do not like as long as it means they post their opinion, and do not make that decision for others by banning them. If you do not like it, say so.

It seems, however, that "objectionable" here aims to ban this and similar images.
Lets see why…
Obviously neither scale nor the civilian nature of the miniature can be an issue, as we have many miniatures in this scale, and civilian – non wargaming – minis also show up regularly (lately I have seen amazing Vikings and Renaissance minis, though in 1/72). Nudity itself can also not the issue, as fighting nude is not unheard of, and there is a special board for such minis.

So it must be the special pose that the user finds "objectionable". That leaves the question wether there IS a line (probably towards pornography) that shall not be crossed, or wether there is an "anything goes" policy.

Ultimately the decision to implement and communcate a "no pornography" rule (with a usable definition) lies with the owners of this site. Personally I am able to just ignore postings that I do not like, and I am also able (well, mostly) to ignore "objections" to postings that I do like.

So much for the general situation. For the specific posting, I think that anybody offended by it should not walk around the NSFW board, and asking for a ban on this side of the line is patronizing.

+100 capncarp!

I think there's an awful lot of over-analysis going on in this thread. Bill has clearly defined what "objectionable" means as far as TMP is concerned (remember, Bill's house, Bill's rules)

"OBJECTIONABLE PICTURE – clearly not wargaming related or a wargaming diorama"

So, is the picture wargaming related or a wargaming diorama?

If it is then its OK

If it isn't then – by the TMP definition – it is "objectionable" and shouldn't be there.

However if it is "acceptable" then Bill needs to come up with another definition that allows it.

Basileus quoth: "+100 capncarp!"

Just wait until they see the lawyer's fees for this case!

I just want to point out that this discussion is far longer than the discussion any objectionable miniature has ever gotten.

To quote Tom Lehrer in his stirring march "Smut";
"When correctly viewed, _everything is lewd!"

Anyone here have kids? Would you be okay with your eight-year-old checking these minis out? Do you honestly think a kid is looking at them and thinking,"beautiful art"?

Supreme Court Potter Stewart was credited with saying that he did not know how to describe pornography but, "…I know it when I see it…" (it was actually his law clerk that came up with it).

My point is that the difference between art and porn is in the eye of the beholder. And if the beholder is a minor, and his mom considers it porn…well…I'm just not sure it's worth the hassle.

It's your site Bill. It's your call. Personally, when I visit TMP, I don't look at the pictures, I just read the articles.

To quote Walter Matthau's Supreme Court Justice character in "First Monday in October", re: judging an allegedly obscene film on its artistic merits:"Crap has the right to be crap."

If "objectionable" is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps we should move all such postings to a Dungeons and Dragons thread?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Eye of the Beholder did have some objectionable puzzles in it.

Anyone here have kids? Would you be okay with your eight-year-old checking these minis out? Do you honestly think a kid is looking at them and thinking,"beautiful art"?

Because kids don't know how to search for explicit pornography and will come to TMP to click in the clearly marked Nude Figures board looking for naked miniatures.

Sometimes I am not sure if people think what they write before writing it.

8 year old. You are kidding me right. Sheesh. Got to be a puritan to make sense of this sort of hoo hah

"Hey kids, please don't look at the horrible evil porn minis of nekkid women. Go look at the nice good historically valuable diorama of <insert famous war massacre here>."

Yeah. It might have been better to not bow down before people who follow that kind of logic.

But hey, congrats on amending the rules in a way that serves to reinforce the 'puritan gun-toting rednecks who'll go to the strip club just so they can get offended' stereotype many people still have about wargamers in general.

(In case it's not obvious enough: the NSFW board is the strip club here, and whoever filed the original complaint, quite possibly a living, breathing stereotype.)

As a side step:

Game of Thrones: one of (I have heard – not managed to watch it myself) the nastiest, most violent, full of nudity TV programmes to gain mass traction since (say) Rome (two series of which I enjoyed thoroughly) – a gore-fest with male and female nudity and sex plus all sorts of fun stuff.

Bill allows discussion on both of these shows here – and so he should: they were/are both massively inspirational to many members of this forum.

Is there anyone that watches either of those programmes that would be affected – or indeed offended – by any of the images we are discussing?

I don't watch Girls und Panzers for all the jailbate issues I have mentioned before. I don't game it either. Not very impressed when it appears on TMP – and not just the pictures, you understand: I object conceptually.

But – in the end – I'm and adult. I can object. I can (and almost certainly will) be ignored. So I tend to avoid postings on it now and, in consequence, it doesn't take up a whole lot of my time.

So similarly, if I found any of the nudity – and violence – depicted by miniatures in any scale (and I guess, occasionally I might), so what? I'm just going to ignore it, I think. If one complains it either achieves nothing or it results in this nonsense…

Bill, for crissakes can we leave this alone please?

John T

And there's another fifteen minutes of my life I'll never get back. As far as I'm concerned, entering a complaint about being offended by anything on TMP that is clearly labeled (as is the NSFW board) and that you must make a conscious decision to look at (as you must with the NSFW board) should be subject to DH-ing. Posting in that clearly designated area, regardless of the presence or absence of tags, should not.

LT

I can't define it but I know it when I see it.