Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision

[MonkeyOfLife]

Most artists, for the sake of reaching a wider audience, don't exclusively stick to **** websites; they simultaneously post on a variety of 'em. If someone has safe search on, a search for their name would only take you to the safer websites. If they don't, then they're already looking for explicit material so we're not doing much to protect them.

I guess safe search is a thing, sure but that doesn't fully mean they can't get accessed to Po** from the image I think

There's a reason why things like sponsors and collaboration don't happen because of their content being associated with Po*, the same view can be applied here in my opinion... Especially when we're even censoring the word "Po*" and other inappropriate words here on the forum

 

[Agnaa]

I guess safe search is a thing, sure but that doesn't fully mean they can't get accessed to Po** from the image I think

There's a reason why things like sponsors and collaboration don't happen because of their content being associated with Po*, the same view can be applied here in my opinion... Especially when we're even censoring the word "Po*" and other inappropriate words here on the forum

idk what you mean by sponsors and collaboration not happening; as I said, artists that have worked on **** have been hired for large, mainstream productions.

We censor the word due to advertisers believing that the inclusion of words like that makes us an adult website. It's not to protect teenagers from seeing that word, and it's not because the usage of words like that actually entails that conclusion. The advertisers are lazy idiots.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

idk what you mean by sponsors and collaboration not happening; as I said, artists that have worked on **** have been hired for large, mainstream productions.

I'm talking about the collaboration of the content itself, not the artist... The image/content is associated with ****

We censor the word due to advertisers believing that the inclusion of words like that makes us an adult website. It's not to protect teenagers from seeing that word, and it's not because the usage of words like that actually entails that conclusion. The advertisers are lazy idiots.

, yee but it still a problem in my view to have an image that's associated with P, this doesn't even have to be about young kids... Many people don't like seeing or interacting with inappropriate stuff especially when actual P is involved

Like someone as me who wouldn't at all be offended or disgusted by the content of AKM's profile images, seeing if that one of the images AKM uses are associated with actual P is where things become shaky and problematic on a forum such as this

Otherwise there would be no difference to using literal Hen*** frames that's seemingly "SFW" and saying it's ok because you don't actually get redirected to the NSFW content

 

[Agnaa]

I'm talking about the collaboration of the content itself, not the artist... The image/content is associated with ****

I don't understand.

, yee but it still a problem in my view to have an image that's associated with P, this doesn't even have to be about young kids... Many people don't like seeing or interacting with inappropriate stuff especially when actual P is involved

Like someone as me who wouldn't at all be offended or disgusted by the content of AKM's profile images, seeing if that one of the images AKM uses are associated with actual P is where things become shaky and problematic on a forum such as this

I don't understand how someone will be disturbed by being on a website where a user has a SFW image which was created by an artist who also draws ****, while also not being disturbed by the website containing many verses with NSFW elements, often of a far more extreme and morally upsetting nature.

Otherwise there would be no difference to using literal Hen*** frames that's seemingly "SFW" and saying it's ok because you don't actually get redirected to the NSFW content

I think that'd be fine in some cases but not in others, as I argued earlier in this thread.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

I don't understand.

I don't understand how someone will be disturbed by being on a website where a user has a SFW image which was created by an artist who also draws ****, while also not being disturbed by the website containing many verses with NSFW elements, often of a far more extreme and morally upsetting nature.

uhh no don't think so, this type of content isn't even allowed on the wiki... So I don't see your comparison, unless you're talking about something like berserk but even that isn't actual p****graphic in nature

Also you say you don't understand but literally said this...

Like yeah, I get that we shouldn't unnecessarily link to things which are a few steps away from ****.

So idk if you're either not understanding what I'm saying or trying to be obtuse about it (First time using that word )

I think that'd be fine in some cases but not in others, as I argued earlier in this thread.

Well, in my view, I would disagree with things like that... And I don't think that's something that's ever been allowed? It depends on what you mean with "some cases but not in others" tho

A Hen*** frame that's SFW shouldn't be allowed in my opinion on this forum unless we're going to be more unprofessional and more open about expressing NSFW content, which from what I've seen isn't something we're doing or are going to do

 

[Agnaa]

uhh no don't think so, this type of content isn't even allowed on the wiki... So I don't see your comparison, unless you're talking about something like berserk but even that isn't actual p****graphic in nature

I said "some verses have many NSFW elements, that are more extreme than that which a more extreme and morally upsetting than AKM's images".

You responded "actually, we don't allow verses that are literally just ****".

That doesn't actually contradict what I said.

Monogatari spends multiple pages describing an underage girl's panties; I don't know how someone could consider that less morally objectionable than drawings of adults in skimpy costumes in suggestive poses. I know there are other series on the site containing worse acts involving minors. But they're still allowed on the site because they compose a small fraction of the work as a whole.

But that lens of analysis isn't what you're going by; even if something is fully SFW, if it was originally distributed alongside some NSFW things, you would consider it to not be allowed.

you say you don't understand but literally said this...

So idk if you're either not understanding what I'm saying or trying to be obtuse about it (First time using that word )

To be blunt, the message I was quoted involved English which I couldn't comprehend, while I could comprehend other parts of other posts of yours.

Well in my view I would disagree with things like that... And I think that's something that's never been allowed? Depends on what you mean with "some cases but not in others" tho

A Hen*** frame that's SFW shouldn't be allowed in my opinion on this forum unless we're going to be more unprofessional and more open about expressing NSFW content, which from what I've seen isn't something we're doing or are going to do

I already posted one in my first post in this thread, and no-one cared. So clearly they are allowed.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

I said "some verses have many NSFW elements, that are more extreme than that which a more extreme and morally upsetting than AKM's images".

You responded "actually, we don't allow verses that are literally just ****".

That doesn't actually contradict what I said.

Monogatari spends multiple pages describing an underage girl's panties; I don't know how someone could consider that less morally objectionable than drawings of adults in skimpy costumes in suggestive poses. I know there are other series on the site containing worse acts involving minors. But they're still allowed on the site because they compose a small fraction of the work as a whole.

But that lens of analysis isn't what you're going by; even if something is fully SFW, if it was originally distributed alongside some NSFW things, you would consider it to not be allowed.

you said

I don't understand how someone will be disturbed by being on a website where a user has a SFW image which was created by an artist who also draws ****

which is this and isn't allowed on the wiki... the SFW elements on the image isn't the problem... I've already said with how I view the images like AKM's to be fine unless they are associated with **** in some type of way in the sense you'll get redirect to them from the image

But that lens of analysis isn't what you're going by; even if something is fully SFW, if it was originally distributed alongside some NSFW things, you would consider it to not be allowed.

If something fully SFW is distributed with actual P***, I would consider it to not be allowed yee... A completely reasonable outlook I would think

To be blunt, the message I was quoted involved English which I couldn't comprehend, while I could comprehend other parts of other posts of yours.

Gg , I basically said that the issue is "we shouldn't unnecessarily link to things which are a few steps away from ****" Which you said and agreed is problematic and then said you don't understand how it's problematic because there are "many verses with NSFW elements, often of a far more extreme and morally upsetting nature."

Which didn't make much sense to me by both the comparison and the statment of you saying you don't understand

I already posted one in my first post in this thread, and no-one cared. So clearly they are allowed.

Think this one, you were more so tackling "primary intent of sexual gratification in the viewer" statement then saying it's ok to use **** images if it's SFW

When I said I don't think that's ever been allowed I was talking about using SFW Hen** image as your pfp or something

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

I'll see what others say/think about the things currently talked about first to get more confirmation on things tho (if they ever will)

Since just me and you going back and forth wouldn't matter much and would clog the thread instead of letting others into the conversation to universally agree on a reasonable decision

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Agnaa's reasoning here.

 

[Agnaa]

I'll see what others say/think about the things currently talked about first to get more confirmation on things tho (if they ever will)

Since just me and you going back and forth wouldn't matter much and would clog the thread instead of letting others into the conversation to universally agree on a reasonable decision

Okay, then I won't bother responding unless others request I point out the flaws in your most recent post.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

I agree with Agnaa's reasoning here.

That we are allowed to use SFW images that's associated with P*** and we can use a fully SFW image/frame that's from actual P***?

Just trying to understand what's allowed and what's not

 

[Antvasima]

That we are allowed to use SFW images that's associated with P***

That we are allowed to use SFW images that have been produced by artists who have elsewhere also created erotic drawings.

and we can use a fully SFW image/frame that's from actual P***?

No, that seems to go too far. We should not use images from actual pornographic works that have been cropped to remove the most obscene parts, or SFW images from hen*** comics.

Just trying to understand what's allowed and what's not

No problem.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

That we are allowed to use SFW images that have been produced by artists who have elsewhere also created erotic drawings.

What if they are uploaded at the same place? A SFW image and a NSFW image, that's what the main discussion was about

Or are we unsure of that?

 

[Antvasima]

I do not think that would happen frequently, but think that it would not be a problem as long as the used images are separate and non-sexual in nature.

 

[AKM sama]

Yes, I think as long as you are not able to go to any **** website after clicking on an image and nothing of that sort is shown in said image, it should be fine.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well yeah, to play it safe tho I'd say it has to meet both of these criteria (at least for fanart) to not be allowed:

• It's sexually provocative in some way, even if not 18+
• It leads to an 18+ artist

I've gotten no response to this. I think this is appropriate since 18+ artists don't stay exclusive the **** websites. They're in easily accessible websites like Twitter too