9:19 PM 11/17/08 · Generally speaking, my birthday cake is a slice of Heaven. Well, not exactly...it's a bunch of slices of Heaven. To say that it's just a slice is an understatement and a bit misleading
( Read more... )
Re: [mod comment]cicipsychobunnyNovember 20 2008, 21:15:48 UTC
But not about the food, about the poster's mother. Which sure is detailed, but I still don't get how making "Cake is good" over twelve paragraphs long makes it qualify as food_porn.
Re: [mod comment]cicipsychobunnyNovember 21 2008, 00:45:56 UTC
I've had plenty of good cake, but if I were to "lovingly describe" it, my post would consist of more than "This cake is awesome. Totally, totally awesome. Not that I can describe the flavour/texture/process. Oh, but it has some kind of undescribed frosting. And it's awesome."
It's like a Playboy centrefold where they've taken away the picture and just written: "This chick is naked, and hot. Really, really hot. We can't go into details, but she's totally hot." It's not porn, it's horribly written, it's creating unnecessary drama.
Re: [mod comment]meetzemonstaNovember 21 2008, 15:30:34 UTC
It's not porn, it's horribly written, it's creating unnecessary drama.
Food porn is subjective, as has been stated in this community a thousand times over. Further, in addition to not being a photography community, this is also not a writing community. The mods will not judge posts based on their photos or their writing, providing that the posts in question fit within the parameters of the community.
This post fits within the guidelines whether anyone likes the OP who wrote it, its content, or its style, period. I approved the post from the queue. Any resulting drama was at the hands of community members who complained and didn't like what they were told in response.
Re: [mod comment]cicipsychobunnyNovember 21 2008, 22:37:10 UTC
But the parameters of the community by necessity involve a definition of what food_porn is. Otherwise what defines this comm from any other "post pics/recipes of food" community?
God forbid that right after claiming it's "subjective" you accept that a number of people disagreed with your perception of food_porn, and that being told "well, basically, food_porn has no definition so anything goes as long as it vaguely mentions food and the eating thereof" isn't satisfactory.
Re: [mod comment]meetzemonstaNovember 21 2008, 23:06:50 UTC
Food porn certainly has a definition. However, each individual has their own interpretation of this definition.
From the user info:
There are many varying interpretations of the phrase, “food porn” So we're going to have to walk the fine line of being clear without being creatively restrictive.
People are more than free to disagree with a moderator's decision to approve a post from the queue. However, it has been stated (on more than one occasion now), why this post was allowed.
If community members do not agree with this decision, they are free to find a community which will judge a post's "worthiness" and their delicate sensibilities will no longer be abused by our mods' faulty decision-making process.
Re: [mod comment]meetzemonstaNovember 22 2008, 16:36:02 UTC
I've always found accusing detractors of having "delicate sensibilities" the height of class, personally.
And I've always found that using personal attacks, such as accusing someone of having little or no class, in a debate is a sign of losing the argument.
Regardless, we are finished here. I have stated my position several times, in several different manners. It's not going to change. You are free to accept that or not.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
About the OP's mother's baking.
but I still don't get how making "Cake is good" over twelve paragraphs long makes it qualify as food_porn.
Obviously you've never had good cake then. ;)
Reply
It's like a Playboy centrefold where they've taken away the picture and just written: "This chick is naked, and hot. Really, really hot. We can't go into details, but she's totally hot." It's not porn, it's horribly written, it's creating unnecessary drama.
Reply
Food porn is subjective, as has been stated in this community a thousand times over. Further, in addition to not being a photography community, this is also not a writing community. The mods will not judge posts based on their photos or their writing, providing that the posts in question fit within the parameters of the community.
This post fits within the guidelines whether anyone likes the OP who wrote it, its content, or its style, period. I approved the post from the queue. Any resulting drama was at the hands of community members who complained and didn't like what they were told in response.
Reply
God forbid that right after claiming it's "subjective" you accept that a number of people disagreed with your perception of food_porn, and that being told "well, basically, food_porn has no definition so anything goes as long as it vaguely mentions food and the eating thereof" isn't satisfactory.
Reply
From the user info:
There are many varying interpretations of the phrase, “food porn” So we're going to have to walk the fine line of being clear without being creatively restrictive.
People are more than free to disagree with a moderator's decision to approve a post from the queue. However, it has been stated (on more than one occasion now), why this post was allowed.
If community members do not agree with this decision, they are free to find a community which will judge a post's "worthiness" and their delicate sensibilities will no longer be abused by our mods' faulty decision-making process.
Reply
Reply
And I've always found that using personal attacks, such as accusing someone of having little or no class, in a debate is a sign of losing the argument.
Regardless, we are finished here. I have stated my position several times, in several different manners. It's not going to change. You are free to accept that or not.
Reply
Leave a comment