Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
> Speaking of Korea, this site feels more and more like North Korea by the day.
Lol. Lmao.
It's a free site, and the moderators are volunteers. I'm sorry if you think excessively photoshopped images not being allowed is equivalent to reads hand living under an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship but... I have no followup, the thought is too ridiculous to respond to.
It's just an off-cuff analogy, not to be taken as a literal equivalence... obviously... Yes, it's a free site, some sites are open to honest feedback from its members, and some aren't. True to form I see this one isn't. Which is fine, they don't have to be.
I mean there are/were 16 year old's here who cultivated a cult following. I wish removing pedophilia was approached with the same fervor as we see with photo manipulation. Otherwise, it's an odd set of priorities imo.
Also, saying you're not going to ban someone who didn't break any rules isn't really saying anything.
I mean there are/were 16 year old's here who cultivated a cult following. I wish removing pedophilia was approached with the same fervor as we see with photo manipulation. Otherwise, it's an odd set of priorities imo.
Also, saying you're not going to ban someone who didn't break any rules isn't really saying anything.
we do remove minors, like all the time. sometimes it takes a while to get to them because it's not immediately obvious. just because you don't always see it doesn't mean it's not happening.
it's much more helpful to say:
"hey, i saw some hubbub about this pic but for sure that girl is a minor, here's a link."
rather than
"hey guys are looking at minors you should do something about it."
also i deleted around 70 images today of a girl who is now 20 but who had postings so infrequently that the older stuff got buried. so there is for sure stuff happening.
it's much more helpful to say:
"hey, i saw some hubbub about this pic but for sure that girl is a minor, here's a link."
rather than
"hey guys are looking at minors you should do something about it."
also i deleted around 70 images today of a girl who is now 20 but who had postings so infrequently that the older stuff got buried. so there is for sure stuff happening.
When Dylan Crenshaw first popped up on this site she was under 18. I brought up the issue of her age, and nothing was ever done about it.
I think the report function is useful in this case. I think it’s why Africa Marth is blacklisted, I know I reported a picture of her because she’s 16.
yeah i remember this, thanks for the report
For the record Dylan was 15 y/o when she first popped up here, yet check the comments: https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/938751/
basically, let's put it like this. I believe this was also a case in Japan, recently: a man marries a woman, and she looks like she looks. then they have kids, and they have noses he didn't like. but neither he nor his wife have that kind of nose.
whoops, she had a pretty invasive rhinoplasty pre-marriage that she didn't mention, because she didn't like her nose.
Maybe you're referring to this story? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-sues-wi...
It supposedly happened in China, not Japan, and it's also completely made up.
it would have been easier for you to report that image than post it here.
Maybe you're referring to this story? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-sues-wi...
It supposedly happened in China, not Japan, and it's also completely made up.
fake or not i think the point still stands
Hey guess what? You've made another really questionable decision! It's becoming a trend, so I guess there's something to be proud of in there somewhere. Here's the thing, though: Eun Hee's photos seemed to be pretty popular. Maybe I'm misremembering because I did have her in my follow list, but I recall seeing new pics of her hit the "High Score Today" section regularly.
I won't fall into the same over-dramatic rhetoric of comparing the site to North Korea, but I will point out that moderation and site decisions have started to seem less like they're being made "for the good of the members" and more like "because it's our club and this is what we want." From the outside looking in, there's a serious lack of objectivity. It's not a very good look.
Hey guess what? You've made another really questionable decision! It's becoming a trend, so I guess there's something to be proud of in there somewhere. Here's the thing, though: Eun Hee's photos seemed to be pretty popular. Maybe I'm misremembering because I did have her in my follow list, but I recall seeing new pics of her hit the "High Score Today" section regularly.
I won't fall into the same over-dramatic rhetoric of comparing the site to North Korea, but I will point out that moderation and site decisions have started to seem less like they're being made "for the good of the members" and more like "because it's our club and this is what we want." From the outside looking in, there's a serious lack of objectivity. It's not a very good look.
Well said. I have been sitting on how to add a response that was valuable to the conversation, but I think you nailed it. So, +1.
I think if you were to compare the number of reports of Eun Hee's photos to the number of members ravenously interested in her pics, this should be an easy discussion.
I remember when Lynn McCrossin started applying this ridiculous Photoshop smooth job to her face in all her official photos. It looked like we were looking at her through a pane of glass with Vaseline applied to it over the area corresponding to just her face.
Then she stopped doing that and her face was fine, very attractive in fact for a woman in her fifties.
My how times have changed, a smooth job is the bare minimum now. Table stakes. I miss Lynn.
Ban Eun Hee Kang is a total nonsense.
that is something is bother me for while, why not onyl delete the suposed morph image, or tag as morph, why is need to blacklist the girl???
Because just like Lee Jin Seo or Yuan Herong, once you spotted a morphed pic, you don't which pics are fake or not anymore, and you will always looking for that. It's really boring
You know It's just like spoiled food. Are you gonna desperated looking for what is eatable or not, or just throw everything in trash? Better delete the problem.
I won't fall into the same over-dramatic rhetoric of comparing the site to North Korea, but I will point out that moderation and site decisions have started to seem less like they're being made "for the good of the members" and more like "because it's our club and this is what we want." From the outside looking in, there's a serious lack of objectivity. It's not a very good look.
Yep I fell that too. Just like the recent attempt (almost forced from my POV) to replace the recently commented section by recently favorited. Like "We gonna do that and even if you like it or not, you should agree with that, because we know it's the right idea." And we know how it's ended, most of peoples said NO.
I do not understand at all why such a discussion arises here. The circumstance is quite simple: the website is called "Girls with muscle" and for this reason it should contain pictures of female persons with above average musculature.
The fact that nowadays this means that most of these people reach deep into the pharmaceutical drawer is, from my point of view, absolutely regrettable. But be that as it may, they possess far above average musculature and belong on this page. Whether they are allowed to claim that they are natural and what effects that has is another matter.
But the fact that it has now come to the point where it is no longer possible to determine from photos whether the person depicted has above-average musculature or not changes a lot. Because we are no longer talking about people who perform at their best, no matter how hard they work, but about people who only give the impression that they are performing at their best.
Celebrating both groups on the same website without distinguishing them from each other simply doesn't do justice to those who sacrifice leisure time, social life and often health for their look.
That's why some photos don't belong here. And the question is not whether a photo has been edited, but whether the editing was intended to simulate a muscular situation that does not exist in reality, and in this way gain unjustified (in the sense of the website) attention.
That is simply unsportsmanlike - and in the end this is about sport, isn't it?
All those who either don't care about reality or whose value system is already so confused that they assume even the most improbable developments to be real, can find what they are looking for on other sites. And pay homage to the CGI products offered there and be convinced that they represent the truth.
P.S.: One thing also needs to be considered: As a provider of content on the Internet, one is always also an operator of information bubbles. It is a moral duty to ensure that members remain at least partially grounded in reality. And especially at a time when lies are becoming the most important and powerful political tool. How incredibly far away from any reasonable, reality-based assessment many visitors to this website already are can be seen live in any "natty or not" discussion.
This cluelessness should not be increased by shamelessly edited pictures.
For the record, I already stated my stance on this issue:
Morph blacklistings are particularly bothersome to me because I feel like there could be a compromise of sorts if people were willing to work it out. It wasn't my decision to blacklist Eun Hee Kang, but I do see the evidence stacked against her. It is a shame because as others have pointed out, she does in fact have an amazing body, but for cultural and/or generational reasons she does tend to photoshop/filter her images.
Having said that, we are working behind the scenes to come up with a compromise. It may not be the best solution, because these discussions are based on the ideas that we (the mods) can bring to the table, and what Chainer (admin/site owner/programmer) is able to implement.
I agree that blacklisting is an extreme measure, but in the past we've typically blacklisted them early on (when they've only had a handful of uploads) so not much harm was done. In Eun Hee's case, she had been on the site for years (and morphing for years apparently) before something was done about it, and not to mention she's made it into the GWM's Most Subscribed list... so the backlash is understandable.
The goal right now is to keep these blacklisted women (only those who morph their images) on the site, but present them in such a way that users are aware that they do morph their images. Again, Chainer is listening to ideas and juggling how he can implement these changes to the site. Anyone who is a programmer knows that this can be a huge undertaking for a single person so a bit of time will be required, especially since he has a full time career outside of this.
I'm not sure how the backend is set up, so this is going to be off-base and not wanted. I'm just thinking through this and posting for fun, don't take it too seriously.
I'm assuming this site is written in Django, based on the {% csrf_token %} error I've seen when accidentally trying to login twice. Also assuming the women aren't individual objects within the DB, which makes this a tougher problem to solve. If they were, then it would just be a matter of adding a new BooleanField field to the Model and making the proper conditional check within the Detail and ListViews (if CBV) to add a 'morph warning' badge to their images, and also keep them out of the high score list. But again it doesn't seem like the DB is set up in that manner. Alternatively, couldn't the logic used for blacklisting be adopted for this as well? Where instead of checking to see if the name is allowed here, you're checking to see if the name is tagged for morphing. With that, you're making a new list of names and running the same few lines of conditional checks mentioned earlier.
I wonder if the admin is willing to go open source, I'm sure there are several devs here who could help. But, I certainly understand the argument against open source as well.
Barbara Carita's recent pics are definitely over shopped specially facially but I don't know where Mods want to draw the line - https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/full/1...
I can think of a dozen different reasons for those pics not to be on the site. I want to bleach my eyes after seeing that shit.
Please watch this: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CgcvJzfjIWL/?i...
Three paragraphs of bashing and one line of ass-kissing. Complaining is human nature, but that weasel ending takes the cake.
Whose ass am I kissing exactly? There are some clear problems in the moderation strategy. You can reveal the identities of CrushWrestling models, but not HBC models. Some people can spot a minor morph in someone's lat and deal with it immediately, but can't tell when someone is 15 years old. Mods decide when a discussion is over instead of the OP. Among other things already mentioned. I say these things because they're true, but at the same time, it's not anything personal or against anyone specific. I voice these concerns because I want to see the site improve, not to bring anyone down. So yes, it is not to personally bash anyone, it's just my honest opinion in hopes they would be heard. But they weren't and that's fine too.
i think equating steroid use to photoshopping in image is....not really apt in this case.