Erin Koski wrote:
Regarding this image:
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 95-big.jpg

I can see the underwear through the "lining" of the back and front of the dress.  This is what leads me to believe the front of the dress over the breasts is the same sheer material.

We do and have admitted errors where we find them.  As mentioned before, sometimes images are denied and then later approved.  It is not based on pride that we're not reversing our decision on the tan dress.  If someone showed the image team (via CAM) the front of the tan dress and it was obviously opaque we would have a new discussion with the team.  So far that hasn't happened. 

We are not going to scrap the apps.  And we are not going to stop the contests.  It is up to each individual if they wish to participate in the contests or indeed the site as a whole.

We are back to what you think you can see, and what everyone can see. You can confuse a pantyline with panties behind the lining because your eyes see the sheer sides of her outfit. Then you extrapolate that to mean all of the outfit is sheer, and had she moved her arm, rolled more to her side, well, a nipple might be there.... yet on the other image, you envisioned a magic strapless bra. Incredible sense of gymnastic reasoning, but stand your ground.

Erin Koski wrote:
If I could imagine the model in the tan dress wearing a strapless bra I would have voted to leave it in the contest, but it's obvious she's not wearing one.  I'm confident I'm not confusing a panty line with being able to see the underwear through the sheer fabric. 

Maybe it's time to just submit another image of the tan dress from the front to the mod team and they can re-review instead of arguing over how we interpret the side-shot.  As it stands, the mod team sees it differently than you do, and we're put in charge of moderating the contests so without additional (new) information such as a shot of the dress from the front, this image won't be allowed in the POTD contest.

so you cannot imagine a bra in the tan sheer dress.
but you can imagine a strapless bra in a clearly sheer dress.
and you can imagine a dress falling down behind a crossed arm.
you seem to have a bit of selective imagination.

and since you do not seem to want to read what was written, I will once again try to explain: the tan dress does in fact have a sheer material on the sides. The opaque liner is on the back and front. Whatever you imagine beneath the opaque liner is just that, your imagination. Whatever you imagine behind her opaque arm and opaque liner is in your fantasies.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
so you cannot imagine a bra in the tan sheer dress.
but you can imagine a strapless bra in a clearly sheer dress.
and you can imagine a dress falling down behind a crossed arm.
you seem to have a bit of selective imagination.

and since you do not seem to want to read what was written, I will once again try to explain: the tan dress does in fact have a sheer material on the sides. The opaque liner is on the back and front. Whatever you imagine beneath the opaque liner is just that, your imagination. Whatever you imagine behind her opaque arm and opaque liner is in your fantasies.

There is no bra in the image with the tan dress.  We can clearly see on the sheer sides there is no bra.  I'm not sure how you are using this as a point of argument.  The reason I can imagine the model in the blue sheer dress might be wearing a strapless dress is her hair and arms are covering so much that I can't see the area where a bra would be.  It is impossible to tell if she's wearing one or not.  It's not impossible to tell on the tan dress.  We can tell she's not.  I already know you've said the dress is opaque in the front, and I've said repeatedly that this is not clear to me from the photo.  I can see panties through not only the sheer sides but where it changes to the darker/thicker fabric. 

If the person who posted the tan dress wishes to appeal the decision I've explained how they may do so.  If they are not going to or not interested in doing so, then the decision stands.   I have nothing more to say about that particular image.

Erin Koski wrote:

There is no bra in the image with the tan dress.  We can clearly see on the sheer sides there is no bra.  I'm not sure how you are using this as a point of argument.  The reason I can imagine the model in the blue sheer dress might be wearing a strapless dress is her hair and arms are covering so much that I can't see the area where a bra would be.  It is impossible to tell if she's wearing one or not.  It's not impossible to tell on the tan dress.  We can tell she's not.  I already know you've said the dress is opaque in the front, and I've said repeatedly that this is not clear to me from the photo.  I can see panties through not only the sheer sides but where it changes to the darker/thicker fabric. 

If the person who posted the tan dress wishes to appeal the decision I've explained how they may do so.  If they are not going to or not interested in doing so, then the decision stands.   I have nothing more to say about that particular image.

https://www.victoriassecret.com/us/vs/b … 5000008821
your imagination seems selective

Eric212Grapher wrote:
https://www.victoriassecret.com/us/vs/b … 5000008821
your imagination seems selective

We also do not consider pasties to be sufficient coverage to make an image not mature for this site.  I think these would fall into the same category.  But I'll bring it up with the team.

Erin Koski wrote:
We also do not consider pasties to be sufficient coverage to make an image not mature for this site.  I think these would fall into the same category.  But I'll bring it up with the team.

Umm, I know you guys like to make the rules up as you go along and then change them as you see fit, but having been married to an actual woman for quite sometime, and also having raised daughters into adulthood I can unequivocally state with little fear of contradiction that pasties (or more accurately nipple covers) and strapless bras are not the same thing, and they do not perform the same function. The mere fact that this needs to be discussed with the team should inform anyone considering entering the contests of the subjectivity of the moderating therein, and those that need to have been educated in the difference should probably have not been moderating in the first place. Just in case the team is still confused though, nipple covers or pasties are believe it or not for covering up nipples! Strapless bras are for shape and support of the breasts typically worn under strapless gowns or tops but often used anytime a bra strap in plain sight or under the clothes would ruin the look.

JQuest wrote:
Umm, I know you guys like to make the rules up as you go along and then change them as you see fit, but having been married to an actual woman for quite sometime, and also having raised daughters into adulthood I can unequivocally state with little fear of contradiction that pasties (or more accurately nipple covers) and strapless bras are not the same thing, and they do not perform the same function. The mere fact that this needs to be discussed with the team should inform anyone considering entering the contests of the subjectivity of the moderating therein, and those that need to have been educated in the difference should probably have not been moderating in the first place. Just in case the team is still confused though, nipple covers or pasties are believe it or not for covering up nipples! Strapless bras are for shape and support of the breasts typically worn under strapless gowns or tops but often used anytime a bra strap in plain sight or under the clothes would ruin the look.

I am myself a woman, and have been one all my adult life.  I have breasts and have worn bras and strapless bras and am familiar with nipple covers as well. 

I'm not sure if you missed what I said but we don't consider strapless bras to be in the same category as pasties.   We consider strapless bras, worn normally, to be adequate coverage for the POTD contest (unless they are see-through such as a lace bandeau or something)

What I was talking about here was a strapless and also backless bra - two tear-drop shaped pieces that literally stick to the breasts with adhesive, and are not known for providing any support.  At most maybe pulling the breasts together for added cleavage.  I honestly was not familiar with this exact style, though I'd seen previous iterations such as the "rabbit" covers before, which are basically XL pasties that attempt to offer support.

This is the sort of thing we were talking about:
https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/8cea2f … 1b1b2.jpeg

This is what I brought to the team for comment.

For reference here are the rabbit style covers:
https://stylemissus.com/cdn/shop/produc … -black.jpg

Erin Koski wrote:
What I was talking about here was a strapless and also backless bra - two tear-drop shaped pieces that literally stick to the breasts with adhesive, and are not known for providing any support.  At most maybe pulling the breasts together for added cleavage.  I honestly was not familiar with this exact style, though I'd seen previous iterations such as the "rabbit" covers before, which are basically XL pasties that attempt to offer support.

Strapless, or backless, a bra is a bra and a pasty is a nipple cover, Not the same thing. I'm wondering why if they don't provide support that that companies would manufacture and market them and why webzines would bother to review them?

The 11 Best Backless Bras of 2024, Tested and Reviewed
We Tested 22 Backless Bras, These 7 Actually Stay Up
This one also tests pasties;
16 Best Sticky Bras of 2024, Tested and Reviewed
At any rate, it seems like it should be fairly simple, if an article of clothing is designed to cover the breast then it should be treated as a breast covering and allowed whether it does what it says should be immaterial under the contests rules as long as the breast is covered and it's not sheer or see through exposing the nipple, it's a bra. Something that is designed as a nipple cover should be treated as such and not allowed under the current rules. The fact that a bra is backless or strapless should have no bearing on the decision as backs are not prohibited elements. The point remains however that images in the POTD contest are disallowed and members are penalized on the basis of what moderators are imagining they can see, not what is actually seen or might not be able to be seen.

Erin Koski wrote:
I am probably old fashioned in not feeling ready to call two sticky circles a bra.  I'm not going to call pasties/nip covers bras, and I'm not sure yet on the larger versions.  I understand you may call things a bra that I don't. 

Regarding the tan dress, we've re-reviewed and agreed to allow in the POTD contest.  I've notified 3rd Stream Photo.

Not to be pedantic, but it would seem the fashion industry as a whole has considered strapless, backless bras to be a bra, hence the name.

I think, in all honesty, this is a subject that the mods haven't had to address up to this point. Erin, you've always been pretty forthcoming and honest, so I appreciate you addressing those who have brought up these questions rather than just dismissing them out-of-hand.

It now comes down to whether or not the mods, or at least the majority of them, will consider a strapless, backless bra that is not see-through to be allowed in the regular contest as a piece of worn clothing, thus making an image of a model wearing one (assuming no other mature elements are showing), not mature, such as this image: https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/8cea2f … 1b1b2.jpeg

If that's the case, then any image where a model's breasts are obscured by their arm (as in the image that started this thread) would have to be considered not mature if it's possible the model could be wearing a strapless, backless bra that is fully obscured.

Would you agree, Erin?

Once again, the "my way or the highway" approach, truly ridiculous  .  .  .  instead of fixing glaring inconsistencies and making it possible for all of us who obviously would enjoy participating in the contests and interacting with the rest of the inhabitants of the site, without being subjected to an endless barrage of wrongly applied rulings and the awarding of juvenile demerits  .  .  .  shrewd indeed!  What a wonderful business model you've adopted, continuous narrowing of participation on a site that relies on participation to exist, brilliant!

SOS

Erin Koski wrote:
I am probably old fashioned in not feeling ready to call two sticky circles a bra.  I'm not going to call pasties/nip covers bras, and I'm not sure yet on the larger versions.  I understand you may call things a bra that I don't. 

Regarding the tan dress, we've re-reviewed and agreed to allow in the POTD contest.  I've notified 3rd Stream Photo.

Wow, it only took a few days to reverse a terrible decision: since Dec 18 23, just 118 days. Still a record turn-around ought to be praised. I must apologize for thinking the mods would never reverse their terrible decision. All it took was an imaginary, strapless, backless bra.

I do not care what you call a bra. It ought not matter whether the top covering all of the female nipples and much of the breast is a bra, bikini top, or sheer top with opaque patches. The rules are no female nipples, no sheer covering, or opaque non-clothing coverings. Explain how an item of clothing, such as a backless, strapless, opaque top does violates the rules? What if the covering was a plunging neckline with two strips covering her nipples? What about a skimpy bikini top? Are side boobs allowed? The mods should follow the written rules, not personal opinions dating back to Puritans times.

As far as I can find to read, opaque clothing that covers the female nipples is required. Your personal opinion on what is a bra, swim top, daring necklines, etc does not matter. And I really wish you would toss out whatever your imagination thinks it sees or not see. Think of this rule like the spreadie rules - if you cannot see the genitalia, the leg width does not matter. Ergo, if you cannot see the nipples, the clothing ought not matter. Conjuring up imaginary strapless bras is not the answer. But maybe in 118 days you might reverse how you view the rules, probably not.

Erin Koski wrote:
I am probably old fashioned in not feeling ready to call two sticky circles a bra.  I'm not going to call pasties/nip covers bras, and I'm not sure yet on the larger versions.  I understand you may call things a bra that I don't.

With all due respect, it's not me that is calling a strapless bra or an adhesive bra a bra, and no one has advocated for nipple covers/pasties to be considered as bras. I've simply called things what they are called in online and brick and mortar shops.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
As far as I can find to read, opaque clothing that covers the female nipples is required. Your personal opinion on what is a bra, swim top, daring necklines, etc does not matter. And I really wish you would toss out whatever your imagination thinks it sees or not see. Think of this rule like the spreadie rules - if you cannot see the genitalia, the leg width does not matter. Ergo, if you cannot see the nipples, the clothing ought not matter. Conjuring up imaginary strapless bras is not the answer. But maybe in 118 days you might reverse how you view the rules, probably not.

So, I'm currently in a conversation with one of the mods about what is considered clothing. I did a shoot with a model in which we created her clothing using tape (you've probably heard of the Black Tape Project). Even though the tape likely covered enough for the image to not be considered mature by the Model Mayhem standards, they stated that, "Tape is not clothing."

So I asked the mod if there were only specific materials that Model Mayhem considers clothing. Would an image be considered mature if a model were wearing an outfit made of metal if that outfit would normally not be considered mature had it been made out of cloth? Can we submit images of a model only wearing a potato sack as clothing, for instance, if the sack isn't see-through? Would the sack need to be cut into the shape of a dress, bikini, or other recognizable style of clothing? The list of possibilities could be endless.

Is anything worn as clothing not considered clothing if it's not a material that's typically used to make clothing? I'd be interested to hear other mod's opinions on the subject. And just to be clear, I'm not asking this in a angry or condescending tone. I'm genuinely curious about the answer to this question as I had planned to do some more shoots like this in the future.

KenPhoto wrote:

So, I'm currently in a conversation with one of the mods about what is considered clothing. I did a shoot with a model in which we created her clothing using tape (you've probably heard of the Black Tape Project). Even though the tape likely covered enough for the image to not be considered mature by the Model Mayhem standards, they stated that, "Tape is not clothing."

So I asked the mod if there were only specific materials that Model Mayhem considers clothing. Would an image be considered mature if a model were wearing an outfit made of metal if that outfit would normally not be considered mature had it been made out of cloth? Can we submit images of a model only wearing a potato sack as clothing, for instance, if the sack isn't see-through? Would the sack need to be cut into the shape of a dress, bikini, or other recognizable style of clothing? The list of possibilities could be endless.

Is anything worn as clothing not considered clothing if it's not a material that's typically used to make clothing? I'd be interested to hear other mod's opinions on the subject. And just to be clear, I'm not asking this in a angry or condescending tone. I'm genuinely curious about the answer to this question as I had planned to do some more shoots like this in the future.

Their "clothing rule" stems from their overreaction to the Goggle and Apple app stores ruling.

Go to any fashion school and ask what material clothing can be made of, and you will hear something to the effect, "Anything."
Tape isn't clothing? But we've seen images of people wearing duct tape prom dresses and tuxes.
Some latex and lycra outfits are as form fitting as black tape.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
Their "clothing rule" stems from their overreaction to the Goggle and Apple app stores ruling.

Go to any fashion school and ask what material clothing can be made of, and you will hear something to the effect, "Anything."
Tape isn't clothing? But we've seen images of people wearing duct tape prom dresses and tuxes.
Some latex and lycra outfits are as form fitting as black tape.

I did get a clarification from the mod I was talking to and they did say an outfit made out of unique material, like tape, would be sufficient to render an image not mature if it were covering enough. My tape outfit I originally asked about had space between the pieces of tape. The nipples were fully covered, but it was apparently considered more like nipple pasties than an actual top due to the gaps in the tape, so I appreciate their clarification.

KenPhoto wrote:

I did get a clarification from the mod I was talking to and they did say an outfit made out of unique material, like tape, would be sufficient to render an image not mature if it were covering enough. My tape outfit I originally asked about had space between the pieces of tape. The nipples were fully covered, but it was apparently considered more like nipple pasties than an actual top due to the gaps in the tape, so I appreciate their clarification.

from what you describe, it is the Goldilock's rule: Not too much skin showing.
How does a "No female nipples or areola" rule become "we will tell you when too much breast material is revealed"?
To me, that is not a clarification, but just stating their subjective opinions, overreacting to the App Gods, and ignoring their own written rules.

KenPhoto wrote:
If that's the case, then any image where a model's breasts are obscured by their arm (as in the image that started this thread) would have to be considered not mature if it's possible the model could be wearing a strapless, backless bra that is fully obscured.

We're not going to be able to allow just any image where a model's arm covers her breasts and might have some sticky adhesive pads behind it.  This comes down to what we're allowed to allow in public spaces and still have our app be on the major app stores.  This is part of the reason I was not ready to call two sticky tear-drop shapes a "bra" when I do not consider pasties a bra (two sticky circles).  To me, as someone intimately familiar with breasts and things that hold, support, and cover breasts, they seem awfully similar. 

Eric212Grapher wrote:
Explain how an item of clothing, such as a backless, strapless, opaque top does violates the rules? What if the covering was a plunging neckline with two strips covering her nipples? What about a skimpy bikini top? Are side boobs allowed? The mods should follow the written rules, not personal opinions dating back to Puritans times.

As far as I can find to read, opaque clothing that covers the female nipples is required. Your personal opinion on what is a bra, swim top, daring necklines, etc does not matter. And I really wish you would toss out whatever your imagination thinks it sees or not see. Think of this rule like the spreadie rules - if you cannot see the genitalia, the leg width does not matter. Ergo, if you cannot see the nipples, the clothing ought not matter.

Again, this goes back to the constraints placed on us by Google to keep MM in their app store. They are the ones dictating more coverage in public spaces on the site.  It is this reason we are not able to say "if I can't see the nipple, then the image is allowable."  The reason I'm trying to imagine if a bra or similar clothing is present is that I'm trying to give benefit of doubt to images where I'm able and allowed.  Otherwise I'd take anything that looks remotely like an implied nude picture and say it's mature.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
from what you describe, it is the Goldilock's rule: Not too much skin showing.
How does a "No female nipples or areola" rule become "we will tell you when too much breast material is revealed"?
To me, that is not a clarification, but just stating their subjective opinions, overreacting to the App Gods, and ignoring their own written rules.

It's not overreacting.  When this first came about, we tried to push back, especially because other social media sites allow for much more to be shown than they were allowing us.  We were not successful in getting them to budge.  We also did initially have more strict rules than we do now.  It was a period of a few weeks to a month or so where we were able to relax that a little (to where we are now), as we had better understanding of their image judgements.  We've ended up in this spot because it is meeting their expectations, and we are not getting threatened or having the app removed from their stores.

When we first had restrictions coming from Google, a female model at the beach, wearing a strapless bikini and holding a big sun-hat in front of her chest would have been considered mature.  Over time, we've been able to allow for such images.  but we aren't able to allow for as much as you are suggesting we do.

KenPhoto wrote:
So I asked the mod if there were only specific materials that Model Mayhem considers clothing. Would an image be considered mature if a model were wearing an outfit made of metal if that outfit would normally not be considered mature had it been made out of cloth? Can we submit images of a model only wearing a potato sack as clothing, for instance, if the sack isn't see-through? Would the sack need to be cut into the shape of a dress, bikini, or other recognizable style of clothing? The list of possibilities could be endless.

Is anything worn as clothing not considered clothing if it's not a material that's typically used to make clothing? I'd be interested to hear other mod's opinions on the subject. And just to be clear, I'm not asking this in a angry or condescending tone. I'm genuinely curious about the answer to this question as I had planned to do some more shoots like this in the future.

Hopefully you're being sincere about looking for other mod's opinions.  Here is mine.  I consider it clothing if it's something I can easily imagine someone wearing while walking around in public, in a shopping mall, etc.  I'm not talking about Venice Beach where you might see someone without clothes, and not talking about Walmart where you might see all manner of body parts hanging out of clothing.  But just, a typical grocery store sort of situation where I live here in California.  Might I see someone in a tiny tank top? Sure.  Could I see someone in shorts with half the butt hanging out?  Likely.  Might I see someone wearing only little bits of tape?  Not likely.  Will I see someone in a dress made of duct tape? I don't see a problem with that.  Will I see someone wearing nothing but a thong on their lower body?  No.  Will I see a woman wearing only suspenders over her top?  No.  Will I see a woman wearing nothing but a feather boa over her top?  No.  Might I see someone wearing a potato sack-dress?  Maybe.  It would certainly be unusual but I wouldn't expect it to show off too much of a person's body.  Could I see someone wearing a very loose bedsheet just held up over her breasts by her hand?  No.
Will I see someone in only body paint? or glitter?  No.  Will I see a female wearing just a belt across her breasts/nipples?  No. 

I generally try not to share my thoughts on this because 1) I can already anticipate the mean-spirited retorts and 2) my "rule of thumb" doesn't completely line up with our guidelines.  We do allow for a few things that I don't feel you would see an average person covering themselves with out in public, such as lingerie, a thong (if we can't see more than one buttock in the image), or a female wearing a button-up shirt where all the buttons are undone and the shirt is open and it's obvious no bra is worn.  So rather than have it be a topic of ridicule and argument I generally just keep this to myself.

Erin Koski wrote:
--snip--
  but we aren't able to allow for as much as you are suggesting we do.
--snip--

I'm not suggesting you run afoul of your Google overlords. I'm saying your written rules differ from whatever criteria you a judging images.

The very first step is to get your rules to match how you are judging the images. If you are going to judge by the amount of breast shown, then get the rules to state that's how the images will be screened. Right now, the rules only call out exposed nipples or those nipples covered by non-clothing. There is nothing about "normal grocery store outfits" - if that is in fact how you are judging qualifications, state it with all the other rules. One-stop reading for the rules.

Having written rules differing from whatever imagined rules you have hidden behind the curtain is unhelpful and quite frustrating. The "Mother may I" review option is simply idiotic and insulting to adults. Get the rules written to align with whatever the mods are judging behind closed doors.

I say this knowing how poorly the mods have worded the rules, but you ought not post one set of rules, then judge on another, and issue demerits for not following the unwritten rules. Make a clear post of what the rules you are judging the images. When I search MM for "not work safe" or "prohibited elements" I do not find most of what we have been discussing here. The pinned post is quite brief in the "new rules" area, yet your own posts in this thread demonstrate that the mods are using some other criteria than what we can read when submitting to the contests.

Think of this rule like the spreadie rules - if you cannot see the genitalia, the leg width does not matter. Ergo, if you cannot see the nipples, the clothing ought not matter.

Erin Koski wrote:
It's not overreacting.  When this first came about, we tried to push back, especially because other social media sites allow for much more to be shown than they were allowing us.  We were not successful in getting them to budge.  We also did initially have more strict rules than we do now.  It was a period of a few weeks to a month or so where we were able to relax that a little (to where we are now), as we had better understanding of their image judgements.  We've ended up in this spot because it is meeting their expectations, and we are not getting threatened or having the app removed from their stores.

So, does the regular POTD contest need to be made available to the public? I mean, only members can vote on it, correct? Why not just make it MM only content, not viewable by the public or on the apps? That way, you could be a little more relaxed with the rules. The only issue I could see is that some of them images are posted on social media, like Facebook and Instagram, but the mod who does that is already selective of which images they post, since they stopped only posting the winners, so I don't think that would be a problem. Just a thought.

Erin Koski wrote:
Hopefully you're being sincere about looking for other mod's opinions.  Here is mine.  I consider it clothing if it's something I can easily imagine someone wearing while walking around in public, in a shopping mall, etc.  I'm not talking about Venice Beach where you might see someone without clothes, and not talking about Walmart where you might see all manner of body parts hanging out of clothing.  But just, a typical grocery store sort of situation where I live here in California.  Might I see someone in a tiny tank top? Sure.  Could I see someone in shorts with half the butt hanging out?  Likely.  Might I see someone wearing only little bits of tape?  Not likely.  Will I see someone in a dress made of duct tape? I don't see a problem with that.  Will I see someone wearing nothing but a thong on their lower body?  No.  Will I see a woman wearing only suspenders over her top?  No.  Will I see a woman wearing nothing but a feather boa over her top?  No.  Might I see someone wearing a potato sack-dress?  Maybe.  It would certainly be unusual but I wouldn't expect it to show off too much of a person's body.  Could I see someone wearing a very loose bedsheet just held up over her breasts by her hand?  No.
Will I see someone in only body paint? or glitter?  No.  Will I see a female wearing just a belt across her breasts/nipples?  No. 

I generally try not to share my thoughts on this because 1) I can already anticipate the mean-spirited retorts and 2) my "rule of thumb" doesn't completely line up with our guidelines.  We do allow for a few things that I don't feel you would see an average person covering themselves with out in public, such as lingerie, a thong (if we can't see more than one buttock in the image), or a female wearing a button-up shirt where all the buttons are undone and the shirt is open and it's obvious no bra is worn.  So rather than have it be a topic of ridicule and argument I generally just keep this to myself.

Yes, I was being sincere about this. But the other mod I had been speaking to did clarify that other materials (including tape) could be considered clothing if they covered enough, so I think that answered my question. I think your idea about what sort of clothing/outfits you might see someone wear in a grocery store does make some sense, at least as a baseline.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
I'm not suggesting you run afoul of your Google overlords. I'm saying your written rules differ from whatever criteria you a judging images...

...The "Mother may I" review option is simply idiotic and insulting to adults. Get the rules written to align with whatever the mods are judging behind closed doors.

I understand your frustration with the mods not always going exactly by the rules for judging if an image is allowed in what contest, but I do also see that it has to be at least somewhat subjective because we're dealing with infinite possibilities when it comes to photos. I think of it as something akin to The Supreme Court. They have cases that come before them and sometimes the law is very clear and other times they have to interpret using their own reasoning and logic because there are almost always different interpretations of the law.

I think, for the most part, the mods do try to apply their application of the rules fairly and evenly. Quite often I think they are too strict and get it wrong (such as some of the examples in this thread). But there are also times I think they go slightly outside the written rules the other way to allow some images, rather than disallow. I think Erin is right that they did become a little more lenient as time went on from the creation of the apps.

As far as what you refer to as the "Mother May I" review option being idiotic and insulting to adults, I don't agree with you on that. They've given us an option to get images accepted or rejected without gaining any points. I started doing this for every image years ago. I don't see it as insulting and I'm not sure how it would be. It's simply asking if they think an image sufficiently falls within the bounds to be allowed in the contest. They're going to make that decision either way, at least by getting it pre-approved you don't get any points added when they decide it's not allowed.

I usually submit a handful at a time (5-6) so I don't have to email them every day.

There's nothing "mean spirited" about asking for clarifications concerning murky rules that are inconsistently applied, the vast majority of the friction created in these situations is coming from the inability of the Mods to evenly apply and explain what the rules are for each version of the POTD contests  .  .  .  if each Mod is coming to their own personal conclusion using a different "rule of thumb" instead of an overall consistent interpretation of the stated rules, the problem will never be resolved, when one image is being declared unfit, and yet there are multiple other images entered in that same contest being allowed in sporting the same "questionable" attributes, it begs for a better more consistent application of the rules  .  .  .  based on what I've seen of the proposed Nike Olympic female track athletes unis, none would be allowed in the POTD contest, and yet they'll be seen by literally 100's of millions of viewers, does that override your explanation of what would be publicly viewable?

SOS

KenPhoto wrote:
--snip--
As far as what you refer to as the "Mother May I" review option being idiotic and insulting to adults, I don't agree with you on that. They've given us an option to get images accepted or rejected without gaining any points. I started doing this for every image years ago. I don't see it as insulting and I'm not sure how it would be. It's simply asking if they think an image sufficiently falls within the bounds to be allowed in the contest. They're going to make that decision either way, at least by getting it pre-approved you don't get any points added when they decide it's not allowed.

I usually submit a handful at a time (5-6) so I don't have to email them every day.

The insult is that they write the rules, but realize we lowly members cannot be expected to divine the tea leaves of those words' meanings; ergo, we must place our offerings on the email tables for their blessings.

The process is indeed idiotic. Submit for review for approval to submit to the contest. As I mentioned before, why not just submit to the contest, and they can accept/reject from that queue. No need to assign points unless someone is submitting sitewide prohibited images (graphic sexual or violent or underage). Erin explained that rejecting an image from the contest requires an extra step on the mods' part. To that, I cheer, "Great!" Write the rules better.

The idea that adults must be treated as children, and being told "Because I say so" is off-putting. If you love their circus hoops routine, more power to you. I refuse to play that game.

sospix wrote:
if each Mod is coming to their own personal conclusion using a different "rule of thumb" instead of an overall consistent interpretation of the stated rules, the problem will never be resolved, when one image is being declared unfit, and yet there are multiple other images entered in that same contest being allowed in sporting the same "questionable" attributes, it begs for a better more consistent application of the rules

I think one of the biggest problems is that the mods are not all located in the same place. As far as I know they all do their work on the website from home. I highly doubt they have any weekly or monthly meetings over Zoom to discuss the website. I would be interested in getting a little more "peek behind the curtain" about this, actually. My assumption is that they only discuss a topic by all messaging back and forth with each other, which would contribute to each having their own take on how to interpret the rules. If, by contrast, they all worked in the same office and an image came up for review that was questionable on if it violated the rules or not, they could each easily discuss their reasoning and come to a better consensus. As it is now, each mod just votes yea or nay.

But this process would also require a larger time commitment on the part of the mods, which I've been told many times is not something they wish to take on. And I can certainly understand that.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
The insult is that they write the rules, but realize we lowly members cannot be expected to divine the tea leaves of those words' meanings; ergo, we must place our offerings on the email tables for their blessings.

The process is indeed idiotic. Submit for review for approval to submit to the contest. As I mentioned before, why not just submit to the contest, and they can accept/reject from that queue. No need to assign points unless someone is submitting sitewide prohibited images (graphic sexual or violent or underage). Erin explained that rejecting an image from the contest requires an extra step on the mods' part. To that, I cheer, "Great!" Write the rules better.

The idea that adults must be treated as children, and being told "Because I say so" is off-putting. If you love their circus hoops routine, more power to you. I refuse to play that game.

It's definitely not that I love the "circus hoops". I've complained about some of the rules frequently in the past. But I also realize that the mods are the ones who run the site, so if I wish to participate in their contests, I indeed must jump through their "circus hoops". Otherwise, I'm free to not participate.

I don't know exactly how the site works but from what I've gathered reading the forums and responses from mods over the years I've been here, it appears to me that they don't have direct say over changing the rules and it's a pretty arduous process requiring multiple mods to petition the owners of the site to make changes. The mods seem more like "enforcers" or "customer service reps" rather than the ones that are able to make any meaningful changes to the site, and at least some of them are doing the work for free.

I could be wrong, but it would seem that the ability to submit images through email for "pre-approval" was a work-around the mods came up with to somewhat circumvent the process the higher-up had put in place and give members a little more grace in submitting their images. That's why I don't complain about that particular option, and instead, encourage others to use it.

KenPhoto wrote:
So, does the regular POTD contest need to be made available to the public? I mean, only members can vote on it, correct? Why not just make it MM only content, not viewable by the public or on the apps? That way, you could be a little more relaxed with the rules. The only issue I could see is that some of them images are posted on social media, like Facebook and Instagram, but the mod who does that is already selective of which images they post, since they stopped only posting the winners, so I don't think that would be a problem. Just a thought.

My understanding is they need to be publicly available not only for the social media posts, but so they can be considered public spaces on MM and be easily visible to all members, regardless of if they have mature images hidden or not.  We also want the POTD contest rules to mirror the site rules, which they currently do.  The 18+ contests are more restrictive than what we allow in portfolios, but we want the regular POTD to line up with the site rules for mature images.

sospix wrote:
based on what I've seen of the proposed Nike Olympic female track athletes unis, none would be allowed in the POTD contest, and yet they'll be seen by literally 100's of millions of viewers, does that override your explanation of what would be publicly viewable?

I just saw that the other day.  I wasn't the only one surprised, and I don't think MM is alone in considering it an outfit we'd mark mature.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqNhiY3jD_E (first 60 sec).

KenPhoto wrote:
think one of the biggest problems is that the mods are not all located in the same place. As far as I know they all do their work on the website from home. I highly doubt they have any weekly or monthly meetings over Zoom to discuss the website. I would be interested in getting a little more "peek behind the curtain" about this, actually. My assumption is that they only discuss a topic by all messaging back and forth with each other, which would contribute to each having their own take on how to interpret the rules. If, by contrast, they all worked in the same office and an image came up for review that was questionable on if it violated the rules or not, they could each easily discuss their reasoning and come to a better consensus. As it is now, each mod just votes yea or nay.

But this process would also require a larger time commitment on the part of the mods, which I've been told many times is not something they wish to take on. And I can certainly understand that.
...
I don't know exactly how the site works but from what I've gathered reading the forums and responses from mods over the years I've been here, it appears to me that they don't have direct say over changing the rules and it's a pretty arduous process requiring multiple mods to petition the owners of the site to make changes. The mods seem more like "enforcers" or "customer service reps" rather than the ones that are able to make any meaningful changes to the site, and at least some of them are doing the work for free.

You're right that all the people I've encountered work remotely from home.  Of the people I come in contact with, I know of one person who is paid staff, and two who I would guess might be.  Then everyone else (such as myself) are volunteers and help in our spare time.   (Of course, the company has paid staff that I don't interact with, not just management but positions such as IT etc.)

I've been in one video meeting, and that was after I'd been on the image team for a few years.  The meeting was to welcome a new person to the image team and discuss images and how we are supposed to review images per the current rules.  Other than that, we communicate through the moderator forums, or occasionally email if it's something urgent.  When we are asked to review an image (either for contest eligibility or portfolio eligibility) if the answer doesn't seem obvious to me, I often try to type up *why* I'm voting the way I am, so that information is out there too.
This image was in the POTD contest a few weeks ago:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/769372
It came up for discussion with the image team the day before.  It was suggested for disqualification for implied nude.  Though I think the model very well may be nude, instead of just saying "no" or "I think it's fine" I explained, "Would it be allowed if he were wearing a speedo?  Are you sure he's not? I think it's acceptable."  It was allowed in the contest.  I also occasionally put together lists of images that have been allowed or disqualified from the contests (or from portfolios) to share with the image team and other mods so they can have a quick review and we can be consistent with each other.

You're right that our main task is enforcing the rules we've been given.  Sometimes, when my own 9-5 feels frustrating I daydream about working for MM instead, but from what I've seen it can easily be a 7 days a week job (yuck) and my guess is it doesn't pay as well as my current job, so it doesn't seem like a realistic fantasy.