I Blame the Dutch (mpoetess) wrote,
I Blame the Dutch

  • Mood:

Dear moderator of that icon community. Yes, that one.

Here's a concept: if what's being posted isn't fitting your original definition of 'sexy' then for god's sake, tell people why. Should icons only be of humans or sexually-suggestive fruit? Only contain nudity? Not contain anything that blinks? No cartoons? Is hot pink offensive to thine eye?

The cycle of this particular livejournal community as long as I've watched it has been "People post icons. About once a year the current mods don't feel the icons are sexy/sensual enough, though they never define what exactly is the criteria for that, and feel the need to inform the membership of that fact and how sad it makes them. Deletion is discussed, but unsurprisingly, a reasonable proportion of the 700+ members are perfectly happy with the status quo and would rather the community not be deleted. Moderatorship changes hands. Days pass. Lather, rinse, repeat."

If the definition for 'sexy' is the same as the definition for porn (I can't define it but I know it when I see it) that's fine, but then all the endless moderator sighing basically boils down to "This stuff you people are posting isn't pleasing my aesthetic sensibilities though I can't or won't articulate why, and because I'm the mod, I feel free to whine and bitch about it whereas anybody else who did would get slapped for being rude."
Tags: fandom-bitching/snark, graphics-meta
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded