Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision

[GrathOfLux]

I am very busy at the moment, and I have been for some time. But I recognise I have been called to give input on the discussion, that the discussion has progressed quite a bit, and that my thoughts are to be expected. I will make time to read through what has been said and provide my thoughts soon, hopefully no later than this evening or tomorrow.

 

[CloverDragon03]

But this isn't about a single banner or what people elsewhere think of it. If the banner goes, so will several other pfps. We are discussing the general rules not one particular banner.

I know. I'm not saying it's specifically about that (and btw, I mean our users, just expressing the views off-site). It's representative of an issue at large, obviously - the fact that stuff like this is even allowed.

I don't think it's at all difficult to say "things that are clearly intended to be sexual should not be allowed," and I once again fail to see any actual downside to this. I'd like to see a legitimate one with how, frankly absurdly, staunch the opposition is against the rule passing.

 

[AKM sama]

Well there are a lot of users who disagree with a lot of things on this wiki. I also have my fair share of problems with a lot many things here. I know 90% people do. That's not uncommon. Obviously we can't make everyone happy. We have hundreds of people with hundreds of opinions.

I have nothing new to say at the moment. Clearly we don't see eye to eye on this topic. I'll leave it at that.

 

[FinePoint]

If rules are made stricter in this regard, we should not use an objective metric such as how much skin is showing.

Twitch historically has been trying to do that, and it categorically fails every time because when the letter of the law is that specific people can easily bypass it in whatever creative ways they want. They banned bikinis unless there was hot tubs, so people added random pools to their stream. They laid out guidelines that certain body parts need to be covered, so they covered them but as tightly as possible and with their camera posed in a lewd way.

The fundamental problem is that whether or not something feels sexual lies heavily not just in its content, but how it's presented.
For example, a gif of someone sensually sucking on a candy cane and drooling all over would come off as extremely sexual despite containing no objectively sexual content.

Images can easily be analyzed case-by-case for whether they're primarily sexual:
For example, in terms of AKM's banner (signature), only the first, second, and possibly fourth images actually come off as primarily sexual.
In the first, it's due to the pose and facial expression which is clearly focused on highlighting only her sexual features.
In the second, it's due to the clearly detailed protruding nipples through the shirt, which, let's be honest, isn't something people typically take the time to draw except in a sexual context.
The fourth is less explicit, but may be interpreted as such due to the facial expression, though personally I think it's fine.
The rest are images which seem to simply capture the personality of the character portrayed, including their perhaps originally sexualized appearance, but still doesn't come off as primarily sexual in spite of that.

If the rule were changed to something like: "We do not allow banners and profile pictures which seem primarily sexual," I think it would be easy to simply allow an edge case to be taken to a vote. If a majority of people look at an image and think it's sexual, it probably is.

 

[CloverDragon03]

In terms of AKM's banner, only the first, second, and possibly fourth images actually come off as primarily sexual.
In the first, it's due to the pose and facial expression which is clearly focused on highlighting only her sexual features.
In the second, it's due to the clearly detailed protruding nipples through the shirt, which, let's be honest, isn't something people typically take the time to draw except in a sexual context.
The fourth is less explicit, but may be interpreted as such due to the facial expression, though personally I think it's fine.

We're primarily referring to his banner on his forum message wall (or whatever it's called)

 

[FinePoint]

We're primarily referring to his banner on his forum message wall (or whatever it's called)

Oh. I actually have no issue with that one.
The way it's cropped shows effectively very little, and it seems framed as merely a night on the town rather than anything directly sexual.

Regardless, I was more mentioning it to help highlight how images could be analyzed for whether or not they're primarily sexual.
I edited my message to make that more clear.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Oh. I actually have no issue with that one.
The way it's cropped shows effectively very little, and it seems framed as merely a night on the town rather than anything directly sexual.

Regardless, I was more mentioning it to help highlight how images could be analyzed for whether or not they're primarily sexual.
I edited my message to make that more clear.

...I really have to wonder how you have no problem with that, and especially given when you hover over AKM's username and more is shown. And it used to be worse too

Like, in what world is banning stuff like that a bad thing, guys? Nobody has actually given me a legit downside to this rule being passed, so I'm really starting to believe there is none - and thus, there should be no reason to oppose this thread.

 

[Agnaa]

Like, in what world is banning stuff like that a bad thing, guys? Nobody has actually given me a legit downside to this rule being passed, so I'm really starting to believe there is none - and thus, there should be no reason to oppose this thread.

There's a few approaches I could take to give you a new perspective, so I'll just try them both at once.

1. Why do you think people oppose this thread, if there's no clear reason for you? Do you think there's something you're missing, or do you believe it's due to some nefarious reason?
2. What downside would you propose to a rule such as "Users may not have any characters in their forum profile pics, banners, etc."?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Why do you think people oppose this thread, if there's no clear reason for you? Do you think there's something you're missing, or do you believe it's due to some nefarious reason?

I'd hope I'm missing something, but unfortunately, I'm getting the impression that some people seem to be resistant to change no matter how good it is and would rather keep with tradition. In addition, some who would have to alter their profiles as a result clearly don't want to do so despite the objective good this change provides

Like I said, I don't think "Woe is me, I can't have sexual imagery on my profile" is an actual problem. If you're so staunchly opposed that making such a simple change is that big of an issue, I genuinely have no idea what to say

What downside would you propose to a rule such as "Users may not have any characters in their forum profile pics, banners, etc."?

I don't even want to entertain this, because I don't at all consider this equivalent. The former is a purely draconian move while the latter is keeping our younger userbase in mind, thanks

 

[Agnaa]

I'd hope I'm missing something, but unfortunately, I'm getting the impression that some people seem to be resistant to change no matter how good it is and would rather keep with tradition. In addition, some who would have to alter their profiles as a result clearly don't want to do so despite the objective good this change provides

Like I said, I don't think "Woe is me, I can't have sexual imagery on my profile" is an actual problem. If you're so staunchly opposed that making such a simple change is that big of an issue, I genuinely have no idea what to say

Are the people who oppose this ones you typically see be "resistant to change no matter how good it is"?

I don't even want to entertain this, because I don't at all consider this equivalent. The former is a purely draconian move while the latter is keeping our younger userbase in mind, thanks

Of course they're not equivalent. That's why it's a point of comparison, rather than a logical consequence of implementing this rule.

Let me know if you still don't want to engage, and I'll just respond to this "draconian move vs keep young users in mind" idea. But I think it'd be more fruitful for you to actually consider the reasons involved.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Are the people who oppose this ones you typically see be "resistant to change no matter how good it is"?

Most are, I'd say

Of course they're not equivalent. That's why it's a point of comparison, rather than a logical consequence of implementing this rule.

Let me know if you still don't want to engage, and I'll just respond to this "draconian move vs keep young users in mind" idea. But I think it'd be more fruitful for you to actually consider the reasons involved.

Then I'd say the thing that comes to mind is the much more limited ability for one to freely express oneself.

I'm just thinking about how you might apply this to this situation. For example, I wonder if you might respond to this saying something like "this rule would also limit people's ability to express themselves." To which I'd say that I highly doubt you desperately need sexual imagery to express yourself.

 

[Agnaa]

Then I'd say the thing that comes to mind is the much more limited ability for one to freely express oneself.

I'm just thinking about how you might apply this to this situation. For example, I wonder if you might respond to this saying something like "this rule would also limit people's ability to express themselves." To which I'd say that I highly doubt you desperately need sexual imagery to express yourself.

Yeah something like that. But I'm also fine with banning sexual imagery that crosses my line, which some people use to express themselves.

Really it seems like our biggest difference is that I just do not see the upside.

We are not protecting a 13-year-old from anything by removing visuals parents have no issue with their kids seeing (by taking them to public beaches in western nations). Even kids younger than that see people in bikinis or short-shorts.

So I don't see it as "protect kids" vs "slight amount of expression", I see it as "utterly unnecessary regressive hand-wringing" vs "slight amount of expression". I find this example about as ludicrous as stuff like TV shows not wanting to show a married couple sleeping in the same bed, which happened less than a century ago. Hell, I find it a bit more ludicrous, since I thought we as a society were past that sort of thing. But nope, we're going back to 90's style "You NEED to put a shirt on that woman wearing a bikini. For the kids" stuff.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think it'd be better for even one person unaware of this stuff to not see it than zero people, no? I think you're blowing this way out of proportion with said comparisons too, it's not like a married couple sleeping in the same bed wouldn't be allowed for example. It just attempts to make the arguments in favor of the rule sound ridiculous, while failing to do so and instead making a completely asinine comparison.

It's really not hard to tell what is and isn't, and we keep pretending it is. For example, from the OP:

The banner which precipitated this matter will not be permitted. The artist behind the banner, Sakimichan, has attested directly to the fact that the works they produce are intentionally NSFW and marked as 18+, and a simple analysis of the content and context indicates that the primary reason the work was created was to sexualise the characters for the sake of the viewer’s gratification

That legit is not hard at all. The wiki is accessible to users 13 or older, so make it PG-13.

 

[Agnaa]

I think it'd be better for even one person unaware of this stuff to not see it than zero people, no?

I don't think being aware of it is an issue, which is why the vast majority of parents and governments in the western world have no issue with it.

I think you're blowing this way out of proportion with said comparisons too, it's not like a married couple sleeping in the same bed wouldn't be allowed for example. It just attempts to make the arguments in favor of the rule sound ridiculous, while failing to do so and instead making a completely asinine comparison.

Notice how I didn't say "THIS RULE WOULD BAN SHOWING MARRIED COUPLES IN THE SAME BED". I previously said:

Of course they're not equivalent. That's why it's a point of comparison, rather than a logical consequence of implementing this rule.

And in that message I said

I find this example about as ludicrous as

Then proceeded to show something that was justified in the exact same way at the time. Despite being obviously more extreme and not covered by the proposed rule.

Plus the other example I provided, as far as I can tell, is something you would want censored, since you're against AKM's current banner. If you're against an image of women wearing short-shorts, I'd think you'd be against images of women wearing bikinis, and those have caused outrage and been censored over the past half-century, such as with the games Cruis'n USA and Barbarian: The Ultimate Warrior. But that's not something I really see happen nowadays.

It's really not hard to tell what is and isn't, and we keep pretending it is. For example, from the OP:

That legit is not hard at all. The wiki is accessible to users 13 or older, so make it PG-13.

It already is. I think you're trying to go beyond that.

Plus, I think that quote from the OP is misleading. Not everything Sakimichan draws is NSFW. You'll notice that her Patreon is split into a tier for SFW images, and a tier for NSFW images. And her posts on other websites reflect this; some images are locked to registered accounts over the age of 18, or blurred by default, due to being for adults, while others aren't. This only took me a few minutes to find out, I'm disappointed that DarkGrath didn't do better.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Regarding reasons to oppose this:
Restricting a freedom in itself is always a downside which should require a good reason. And as I see no gain in this proposal whatsoever, so that alone is enough for me. It's suggested that there is harm being done and I doubt it is, especially not to an extent that is avoidable by the rule as I don't think our current rules allow anything really worse than what your average bikini advertisements show.

As I already mentioned, we had threads about things related to such images before where people had fun. There is an interest in these things in the nerd corner to the shock of nobody. So restricting fun is a second downside, as being a platform for fun is part of our mission statement.
Self-expression, too, I suppose.

Furthermore, nebulous and subjective rules as suggested in the OP is against user interest even for images that would be fine under the rule, as you don't have to judge the actual rule text for whether a picture is allowed, but the mood of the staff. So anyone who wishes to avoid breaking the rule would be restricted beyond the intention of the rule, as the line blurs into the legitimate. Rules that amount to 'what the leadership doesn't like is prohibited' just generally aren't great.
Also, expecting someone to research the artist before posting a picture, to check whether there is some statement about their works being intentionally NSFW, is kinda ridiculous to start with IMO.

I think it'd be better for even one person unaware of this stuff to not see it than zero people, no?

So should we ban all debate on occultism? Awareness of it is the first step to joining a cult like Thelema. So isn't even one additional person being unaware of it better?
Should we ban debate about cave diving and ice climbing, as these hobbies are dangerous and we hence wouldn't want people to get interested?

There is a point where the probability and degree of influence becomes negligible to the point of irrelevancy.
Someone that has never seen a girl in a swimsuit from behind participating here and, due to seeing that, ending up disadvantaged further down the road belongs in that category equally or less to the examples above. And I mean that. Both in terms of "likelihood to not have been exposed regardless" and "likelihood of exposure having a measurable negative effect" I actually think the examples I gave are worse.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I don't think being aware of it is an issue, which is why the vast majority of parents and governments in the western world have no issue with it.

That's just funny. I'd like to lower degeneracy, but I guess not everyone agrees with such an objectively good thing

Notice how I didn't say "THIS RULE WOULD BAN SHOWING MARRIED COUPLES IN THE SAME BED". I previously said:

And in that message I said

You said it was as bad as TV shows not wanting that, if not worse. Clearly it's not, given we're not prohibiting that. So that point of yours just falls apart.

Plus the other example I provided, as far as I can tell, is something you would want censored, since you're against AKM's current banner. If you're against an image of women wearing short-shorts, I'd think you'd be against images of women wearing bikinis, and those have caused outrage and been censored over the past half-century, such as with the games Cruis'n USA and Barbarian: The Ultimate Warrior. But that's not something I really see happen nowadays.

I know, and I sincerely hope you know, that these are not equivalent. AKM's banner was self-evidently drawn with sexual gratification in mind (does the big emphasized ass really not communicate that, like be serious). Being in a bikini on its own is not. So let's stop pretending this gotcha of yours actually works, yeah?

It already is. I think you're trying to go beyond that.

Plus, I think that quote from the OP is misleading. Not everything Sakimichan draws is NSFW. You'll notice that her Patreon is split into a tier for SFW images, and a tier for NSFW images. And her posts on other websites reflect this; some images are locked to registered accounts over the age of 18, or blurred by default, due to being for adults, while others aren't. This only took me a few minutes to find out, I'm disappointed that DarkGrath didn't do better.

No, it's not. It's some weird middle-ground between PG-13 and 18+. I wanna know what PG-13 stuff you're watching

Also, can we not pretend that even Sakimichan's SFW content can't meant for sexual gratification? At least, depending on what the art is. This is legitimately turning into willful ignorance just because we really wanna keep the gooner banner I guess. So you can take your disappointment elsewhere.

If anything, I'm disappointed that our staff are acting in such a way over an objective good. If you desperately need sexual art to express yourself, that reflects on you.

Regarding reasons to oppose this:
Restricting a freedom in itself is always a downside which should require a good reason. And as I see no gain in this proposal whatsoever, so that alone is enough for me. It's suggested that there is harm being done and I doubt it is, especially not to an extent that is avoidable by the rule as I don't think our current rules allow anything really worse than what your average bikini advertisements show.

So let's just ignore that this is a not uncommon complaint from the userbase, because clearly that doesn't matter at all I guess. No one's clammoring to keep this stuff aside from the select few of you that are opposing this thread.

And again, if you desperately need to use sexual imagery to express yourself, that reflects negatively on you. Genuinely, it's worth sucking it up. I think we'll live

As I already mentioned, we had threads about things related to such images before where people had fun. There is an interest in these things in the nerd corner to the shock of nobody. So restricting fun is a second downside, as being a platform for fun is part of our mission statement.
Self-expression, too, I suppose.

Weren't such threads banned?

Yeah that point just completely explodes on itself then

Furthermore, nebulous and subjective rules as suggested in the OP is against user interest even for images that would be fine under the rule, as you don't have to judge the actual rule text for whether a picture is allowed, but the mood of the staff. So anyone who wishes to avoid breaking the rule would be restricted beyond the intention of the rule, as the line blurs into the legitimate. Rules that amount to 'what the leadership doesn't like is prohibited' just generally aren't great.
Also, expecting someone to research the artist before posting a picture, to check whether there is some statement about their works being intentionally NSFW, is kinda ridiculous to start with IMO.

Who said anything about researching the artist? Because I sure as hell didn't.

It's legitimately so easy to tell if a singular piece of art is meant for sexual gratification, especially with Grath's guidelines, that this is a complete non-point

So should we ban all debate on occultism? Awareness of it is the first step to joining a cult like Thelema. So isn't even one additional person being unaware of it better?
Should we ban debate about cave diving and ice climbing, as these hobbies are dangerous and we hence wouldn't want people to get interested?

The absolute nothingburger this is, I'm just not gonna even...

There is a point where the probability and degree of influence becomes negligible to the point of irrelevancy.
Someone that has never seen a girl in a swimsuit from behind participating here and, due to seeing that, ending up disadvantaged further down the road belongs in that category equally or less to the examples above. And I mean that. Both in terms of "likelihood to not have been exposed regardless" and "likelihood of exposure having a measurable negative effect" I actually think the examples I gave are worse.

This relies on the assumption that a girl in a swimsuit in a normal environment is equivalent to something that is intended for sexual gratification.

News Flash: Girls wearing swimsuits are not at all for anyone's gratification, and it's disappointing that this is even being argued. None of these points I've responded to are any good at all. Is this really why we're so hellbent on keeping things as is?

 

[Agnaa]

That's just funny. I'd like to lower degeneracy, but I guess not everyone agrees with such an objectively good thing

lol

(To be clear, this is not accusing you of being a nazi; it's pointing out the pitfalls of declaring things as vague as "degeneracy" to be objectively bad, and seeking their removal. Throughout history, such rhetoric has consistently been used to go after outcasts and minorities. You're not trying to do that, but I think I'd be doing a disservice if I didn't mention how fraught that train of thought is)

You said it was as bad as TV shows not wanting that, if not worse. Clearly it's not, given we're not prohibiting that. So that point of yours just falls apart.

Not as bad as, as ludicrous to me as.

I know, and I sincerely hope you know, that these are not equivalent. AKM's banner was self-evidently drawn with sexual gratification in mind (does the big emphasized ass really not communicate that, like be serious). Being in a bikini on its own is not. So let's stop pretending this gotcha of yours actually works, yeah?

Also, can we not pretend that even Sakimichan's SFW content can't meant for sexual gratification? At least, depending on what the art is. This is legitimately turning into willful ignorance just because we really wanna keep the gooner banner I guess. So you can take your disappointment elsewhere.

Firstly, I'd point out how subjective the lines here are. People back then got upset at those censored works I mentioned, despite not being upset at The Creation of Adam.

Secondly, as I said before, I don't care what the intent of it was. As said with my initial hand-holding example, I think that image is both indisputably made for sexual gratification, and appropriate for teenagers.

And to be clear, yes, I know that Sakimichan's SFW content is made for sexual gratification.

If anything, I'm disappointed that our staff are acting in such a way over an objective good.

It's clearly not objectively good if people are disagreeing over it.

If you desperately need sexual art to express yourself, that reflects on you.

I don't. I've never had a sexual profile picture, banner, or anything like that. I think that holds true for every website I've ever been on, actually. I'm not interested in sharing those sorts of things. But I have the integrity to advocate for what's right, rather than selfishly pushing for my pleasure, or against my disgust.

No one's clammoring to keep this stuff aside from the select few of you that are opposing this thread.

No-one disagrees except for the people who disagree? Interesting thing to say. I think it's better to just take an honest look at votes.

Agrees with OP: 9 (DarkGrath, Mr. Bambu, Armorchompy, Deagonx, CloverDragon03, Just_a_Random_Butler, Propellus, Planck69, FinePoint)

Disagrees with OP: 6 (DontTalkDT, AKM sama, Antvasima, DarkDragonMedeus, Damage3245, Agnaa)

I don't think that's a really decisive margin.

 

[CloverDragon03]

lol

(To be clear, this is not accusing you of being a nazi; it's pointing out the pitfalls of declaring things as vague as "degeneracy" to be objectively bad, and seeking their removal. Throughout history, such rhetoric has consistently been used to go after outcasts and minorities. You're not trying to do that, but I think I'd be doing a disservice if I didn't mention how fraught that train of thought is)

I get what you're going for, but that's not how I define degeneracy in this context. Of course, you couldn't have known that, so this is neither here nor there

Secondly, as I said before, I don't care what the intent of it was. As said with my initial hand-holding example, I think that image is both indisputably made for sexual gratification, and appropriate for teenagers.

And to be clear, yes, I know that Sakimichan's SFW content is made for sexual gratification.

Well that's a problem, isn't it? Because to me, what a piece of art is intended to provide is quite important. And also, a **** comic doesn't mean every single page is NSFW (though personally, I'm not a fan of the image there, but meh)

Also if you know that Sakimichan's SFW content is made for sexual gratification, then that entire point and "disappointment" tangent just completely implodes on itself

It's clearly not objectively good if people are disagreeing over it.

People disagree with objectively good things and agree with objectively bad things all the time. Doesn't mean they're not wrong for doing so. One look at Twitter will tell you that much

I don't. I've never had a sexual profile picture, banner, or anything like that. I think that holds true for every website I've ever been on, actually. I'm not interested in sharing those sorts of things. But I have the integrity to advocate for what's right, rather than selfishly pushing for my pleasure, or against my disgust.

I think I should've been clearer that I meant the general "you," not you specifically.

And I believe I'm the one advocating for what's right, and that you're doing the opposite, so this just gets us nowhere

No-one disagrees except for the people who disagree? Interesting thing to say. I think it's better to just take an honest look at votes.

Agrees with OP: 9 (DarkGrath, Mr. Bambu, Armorchompy, Deagonx, CloverDragon03, Just_a_Random_Butler, Propellus, Planck69, FinePoint)

Disagrees with OP: 6 (DontTalkDT, AKM sama, Antvasima, DarkDragonMedeus, Damage3245, Agnaa)

I don't think that's a really decisive margin.

By this, I meant the general userbase. There's no one among our general userbase clammoring to keep things as is besides the people opposing the thread here, while there absolutely are people among our general userbase that want this rule to pass. So, more accurately, I'd say: No one on the wiki is known to want things to stay as is besides the people here opposing this thread.

Also, I believe wiki policy changes only give voting rights to Admins and above, though I could be mistaken

Edit: Also, Ant responded here, so I'm not sure if I'd put him in Disagree

 

[Agnaa]

Well that's a problem, isn't it? Because to me, what a piece of art is intended to provide is quite important. And also, a **** comic doesn't mean every single page is NSFW (though personally, I'm not a fan of the image there, but meh)

I think whether it would cause any adverse effects to a teenager is far, far more important than what the artist intended.

Like, your justification for removing it is the effect such images would have. So the intent shouldn't matter, only the likely effect would be.

Also if you know that Sakimichan's SFW content is made for sexual gratification, then that entire point and "disappointment" tangent just completely implodes on itself

I disagree with this bolded part of what DarkGrath said:

The artist behind the banner, Sakimichan, has attested directly to the fact that the works they produce are intentionally NSFW and marked as 18+, and a simple analysis of the content and context indicates that the primary reason the work was created was to sexualise the characters for the sake of the viewer’s gratification.

They are not, there are many works of hers which are intentionally SFW and not marked as 18+. To use a portion of her work being labelled that way to imply that everything is meant to be NSFW is just demonstrably incorrect.

And I can't know the exact intentions, but I suspect that most artists with paywalled adult-only content create SFW versions like that to entice users with a less-sexualised version. Just enough to get them to actually pay. There are those levels to this sorta thing y'all're glossing over; it's not a binary "sexual for viewer's gratification, or not" sort of deal.

People disagree with objectively good things and agree with objectively bad things all the time. Doesn't mean they're not wrong for doing so. One look at Twitter will tell you that much

There is objectively no objective morality. You can't objectively cross the is-ought gap. There is nothing that is objectively good or objectively bad.

By this, I meant the general userbase. There's no one among our general userbase clammoring to keep things as is, while there absolutely are people among our general userbase that want this rule to pass. So, more accurately, I'd say: No one on the wiki is known to want things to stay as is besides the people here opposing this thread.

I'm pretty sure there are. Looking at "like"s on a few posts, Rakih_Elyan, ProfectusInfinity, Setsuna_tenma, and HammerStrikes219 seem to oppose this rule passing. There's a variety of non-staff users who have lewd profile pictures that I assume wouldn't want this changed, either.

Also, I believe wiki policy changes only give voting rights to Admins and above, though I could be mistaken

Yeah, but I thought I risked accusations of bias since that'd tilt things towards disagree. With 4 agreeing, and 6 disagreeing.

Edit: Also, Ant responded here, so I'm not sure if I'd put him in Disagree

He's changed his mind a lot in the thread, but I admittedly missed that latest one. 10-5 or 5-5 then.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think whether it would cause any adverse effects to a teenager is far, far more important than what the artist intended.

Like, your justification for removing it is the effect such images would have. So the intent shouldn't matter, only the likely effect would be.

Both are important considerations, I'd imagine. The adverse effects for reasons I've already discussed, yeah, and then stuff like the intent helps us determine what's to be on the chopping block

I disagree with this bolded part of what DarkGrath said:

They are not, there are many works of hers which are intentionally SFW and not marked as 18+. To use a portion of her work being labelled that way to imply that everything is meant to be NSFW is just demonstrably incorrect.

And I can't know the exact intentions, but I suspect that most artists with paywalled adult-only content create SFW versions like that to entice users with a less-sexualised version. Just enough to get them to actually pay. There are those levels to this sorta thing y'all're glossing over; it's not a binary "sexual for viewer's gratification, or not" sort of deal.

The account is still clearly an 18+ account with even SFW works meant for sexual gratification. And yes, I know how these kinds of artists work. You're correct that this is a tactic done to entice people to pay. But like... How do they do that? With SFW but still sexually gratifying art. So I'd imagine the point still stands

There is objectively no objective morality. You can't objectively cross the is-ought gap. There is nothing that is objectively good or objectively bad.

I disagree with that notion on a fundamental level, particularly as far as morality is concerned. I think any amount of extreme examples would be testament to that. Just because people disagree with an objective good, that doesn't make it less objectively good. Just because someone disagrees with donating to charity, that doesn't make it not a good thing, for instance.

I'm pretty sure there are. Looking at "like"s on a few posts, Rakih_Elyan, ProfectusInfinity, Setsuna_tenma, and HammerStrikes219 seem to oppose this rule passing. There's a variety of non-staff users who have lewd profile pictures that I assume wouldn't want this changed, either.

Also for likes, it kinda depends because you could support part of something (like for example, you could want the rule to pass but still think that a certain person arguing for the rule isn't arguing it very well). Though I get your point, and the lewd pfp thing is a given yeah.

Though, to that, I'd say a similar thing as before: more users, at the very least from my experience, want stuff like this gone and the people that want it to stay seem like they're in the minority. For something like this, harsh as it may be, I think they'll live without it. I highly doubt they desperately need sexual imagery to express themselves

Yeah, but I thought I risked accusations of bias since that'd tilt things towards disagree. With 4 agreeing, and 6 disagreeing.

I wouldn't even call 4-6 decisive enough given the importance of this thread, and either way, if people are calling you biased for that, they can kick rocks. That's literally just how these threads go, and they should understand that. Like, I'd be very disappointed if this thread got rejected, but I wouldn't call the vote count biased.

He's changed his mind a lot in the thread, but I admittedly missed that latest one. 10-5 or 5-5 then.

I get it, considering how much new arguments and such have come to light, so it can be pretty easy to miss. All good

 

[Agnaa]

Also for likes, it kinda depends because you could support part of something (like for example, you could want the rule to pass but still think that a certain person arguing for the rule isn't arguing it very well). Though I get your point, and the lewd pfp thing is a given yeah.

Though, to that, I'd say a similar thing as before: more users, at the very least from my experience, want stuff like this gone and the people that want it to stay seem like they're in the minority. For something like this, harsh as it may be, I think they'll live without it. I highly doubt they desperately need sexual imagery to express themselves

I hold no quarrel with the statement "more users seem to want these images gone, especially if we weight it by how much they care".

I wouldn't even call 4-6 decisive enough given the importance of this thread

Definitely.

 

[AKM sama]

@CloverDragon03 I feel that something that might be objectively correct for one user can also be objectively incorrect for another. In that case, I'd say either one has a bad sense of judgment in the other's eyes regarding this topic. We'll just have to be happy with agreeing to disagree rather than trying to hold a moral high ground and accusing everybody who doesn't agree with one as objectively incorrect or promoting degeneracy. I find that very insulting and narrow-minded. I could also have responded with soft insults like "Woe is me. I will uwaaa if I see cleavage because I refuse to grow up", but I will not! I'd appreciate if we could just put forth our points instead of adding slights to them. Anyway,

By this, I meant the general userbase.

If we are appealing to popularity here, this is an open and shut case. I would like to put down some data points:

1. I have had more than 200 similar pfps in the last 7 years and I received compliments for roughly half of them. That makes dozens of users who have appreciated the pfps either on my message wall or on random threads I have been to. And I am keeping the numbers conservative here.
2. Apart from me, dozens of other users including staff have had similar pfps and I have seen and appreciated them at different points in time. There are many users who have such pfps at this moment too.
3. Add to that multiple threads with multiple pages dedicated to people posting such images just for the sake of it, or to calculate bust/ass sizes, etc. with dozens of people including staff members participating which are still open. Hell, we've had competitions about who the lewdest one is (of course staying within the rules)!

I didn't add cases where users have reached out offsite for how displeased they are with people being this sensitive over pictures of imaginary women and that they need to grow up. Because people can interact in different circles and we are not doing a popularity poll. A large number of people offsite also think staff X should be banned and staff Y should be demoted and staff Z should step down and user A should not have been punished and character B should be rated a certain way. We don't work like that.

This is just to show that a very sizeable chunk of our users make use and indulge in activities based on our current rules. They either appreciate or don't have any problems with the current rules, or simply don't care. Compare that to the number of reports we have received against bikini clad pfps in the past decade? It's negligible. Of course, everybody has opinions and they matter, but we can't please everybody.

Clamping down on the freedom of so many people, for no real gain seems counter intuitive to me. Not only will it be too restrictive and prudish, we will be seen as highly sensitive and regressive. That's objectively bad to me especially when there is no real upside.

 

[Antvasima]

For the record, I can understand some of the complaints about AKM's banner, but his current signature seems completely harmless. Again, we can try to be considerate to younger members, but we also shouldn't be so prudish that we slip back to the 19th century.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I think that Agnaa and DontTalk made good points above.

Would merely adding to our current rules that our members should not use banners, avatar images, or similar featuring sexualised characters that canonically look 17 years old or less, regardless if they have been aged up or not, be an acceptable compromise solution for everybody here?

 

[Agnaa]

I've already expressed my view on the "aged-up" discussion, which seems a bit different from what you suggest.

 

[Antvasima]

On aged-up characters:

1. If a character is exclusively canonically a minor, sexualized images should not be allowed of them unless they have noticeably different and more adult designs (and, it should go without saying, that they're not too sexualized for our standards, wherever they land). A simple disclaimer saying they're 18 would not be enough.
2. If a character is canonically a minor for part of the story, and adult for another part, sexualized images should only be allowed if they have the design they canonically had as an adult (or a fan design that is on the aged-up side of things).

Hmm. I personally do not mind, but I strongly doubt that the other side of this argument would accept it as a compromise.

 

[AKM sama]

I have also expressed my views on that. And I don't think anybody else except Bambu was even arguing for that point.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. It is what initiated the current controversy though.

 

[Agnaa]

Hmm. I personally do not mind, but I strongly doubt that the other side of this argument would accept it as a compromise.

Yeah fair, if we have to reach a compromise, it is what it is.

 

[AKM sama]

Okay. It is what initiated the current controversy though.

Yet the thread is not about it. If you think aging up of the character was the main issue, why isn't it mentioned in the OP and why didn't anybody else (except Bambu) talk about it throughout the thread? Of course, I am ready to have that conversation if it comes up, but at least going by the conversations in this thread, that's not the main topic.

EDIT: Also, I don't know about you but according to the initial discussion about it in the HR group, none of them considered aging up to be an issue.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Not to sound like a broken record, but I also agree with Agnaa who more or less is in the same boat as AKM and DontTalkDT.

And considering how long the discussion has been going on, we I think a general vote count might be an approach.

 

[Deagonx]

I'd like to lower degeneracy, but I guess not everyone agrees with such an objectively good thing

This type of rhetoric is not helpful.

I am strongly in favor of this rule change, but I am not interested in moralizing it, and that sort of framing is a good way to see this proposal crash and burn and prevent us from reaching a common understanding.

As to the thread at large I'll reiterate my stance: I think it would benefit the atmosphere of the forum to prohibit NSFW images or those that the average person would be uncomfortable looking at in the presence of others, which is why I support the proposed rule.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well I share that stance of yours, yes, but the rhetoric you believe to not be helpful is something I think is a noteworthy consideration - even if just as part of a larger whole. I'll admit I was becoming more passionate about this last night, and some of my phrasing could've been better, but I largely stand by what I said

Edit: This is to say, I'll try to avoid such rhetoric for the sake of the discussion, but I can't make any guarantees.

I won't really be engaging with this much today, by the way, because it's my birthday

 

[Antvasima]

Happy birthday, Clover.

 

[AKM sama]

And considering how long the discussion has been going on, we I think a general vote count might be an approach.

According to the tally Agnaa posted above there isn't a mandate to force this change. In such a case we do nothing and continue to follow the status quo.

However, in the interest of making the currently followed rules clearer, I can try to suggest the following:

Our current rules say this:

• Do not post links to pornographic images or videos. This will lead to an automatic ban without warning.

I think we can add another bullet point for better clarification:

• Avoid posting images where outline of private parts are visible. Also avoid posting images with excessively short and skimpy clothing that go beyond what one can see on a normal beach, for example: bikini.

Suggestions to word it better are welcome. But if others don't feel it is needed, I am fine with it.

 

[Antvasima]

Do we currently have any rules that regulate images featuring characters that are drawn in an underage manner?

 

[AKM sama]

We don't allow it but I am not sure if it is written in our rules. We can probably add that as well.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. That would be appreciated.

 

[CloverDragon03]

According to the tally Agnaa posted above there isn't a mandate to force this change. In such a case we do nothing and continue to follow the status quo.

Uh, no. The thread isn't accepted, but the tally absolutely isn't enough to force a rejection either, so please don't try to

Also, DarkGrath has expressed her intention to comment again on the thread, so let's not conclude this without her, yeah?