Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision

[FinePoint]

...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.

Well, I went to their actual profile page, where it was considerably more cropped. My apologies, I did not know it was shown differently when hovering over their name.
The exaggerated detail on the buttocks of each character in the full image is indeed very sexual in nature.

That said:

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.

I strongly agree with Deagonx's sentiment here.
I couldn't care less what anyone is into or wants to post publicly, and I think it's both futile and none of our business to try and protect people's innocence, or to cater to only the most sensitive people online.

I approve the proposal, but only because I think it's a good PR move not to have heavily sexualized images associated with a forum designed to be appropriate for people as young as thirteen. As far as morality is concerned, I have far worse on my own computer.

 

[CloverDragon03]

If we can at least come to agreement on stuff like the fact that keeping things as is is a really bad PR move, that's fine by me

 

[AKM sama]

Said stuff hasn't had any effect (neither positive nor negative) in our PR in the past decade so I think that line of thought is even more ineffectual than the previous one.

And I wasn't saying that I am trying to force a rejection. That's how threads work. If a proposal for change doesn't receive satisfactory approval, we continue with the status quo. That said, I have no problem in waiting for Grath. I was merely replying to DDM.

 

[CloverDragon03]

What circles are you in where you haven't seen any of this...?

Like, the "gooner banner" (as an example) is not uncommon to hear among users. I don't see a world where banning this stuff isn't beneficial - because I highly doubt we need sexual imagery to express ourselves.

 

[AKM sama]

So we are back to "what some people say elsewhere" which we have already discussed sufficiently. It's starting to go in circles.

Will avoid posting unless I see anything new or have anything new to add.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I didn't even see your response because I was enjoying my birthday, so no I never even discussed this to begin with.

@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.

Well unfortunately for those against this change, I feel quite strongly about it to the point that I'd make no hesitation in saying that it would be nothing but a negative to not let this pass. That good change can just be stopped like this. I understand that's dramatic, but it's my honest opinion of the situation.

Also, stuff like this just blatantly shouldn't have a place on a PG-13 site. We're currently in some weird middle ground of above PG-13 and below 18+ when we should be fully PG-13 given our userbase.

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.

I don't consider your version of such a "woe is me" statement to be exactly equivalent - because I really don't consider the idea of telling a 13-year-old to just "grow up" over this to be appropriate.

It's not like I myself am not a filthy degenerate, but it really is worth recognizing that such things don't have a place here. Time and place for everything, y'know?

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.

Why not go all the way and allow 18+ imagery then? If we're going the freedom route, you could stretch this really far. We're already clamping down on freedom as is, when you think about it.

I'm going to ask you directly, since you in particular seem to be fighting so hard against this: Do you feel that you need sexual imagery to express yourself? If so, why? I've edited the rest of what I said to remove the harsh tone, and if I'm coming off as harsh here I apologize. But, I really can't help but feel like this may be important in helping me understand where you're coming from. Because as of now, I just really don't get it tbh

 

[Antvasima]

There is no need to have such an accusatory tone towards AKM.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well sorry if I, as I've mentioned before, feel quite strongly toward this. I recognize I'm being blunt. Harsh, even. But, if it was ever in doubt, I am trying to help the wiki. It just so happens that what I think is helping doesn't align with what others here think is helping

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, that is appreciated, but you are using too harsh language when doing so.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Got heated the other night, apologies. I can edit my message to fix what I imagine are the harsh parts

 

[CloverDragon03]

I've made the edits, so hopefully I come across as much less harsh now

 

[Armorchompy]

Said stuff hasn't had any effect (neither positive nor negative) in our PR in the past decade so I think that line of thought is even more ineffectual than the previous one.

There has been a pretty consistent trend of people upset about your banners specifically- I'm sure everyone here can think of a few cases. I'm not saying that automatically means they must be right but to say that it hasn't caused controversy is patently false.

So we are back to "what some people say elsewhere" which we have already discussed sufficiently. It's starting to go in circles.

I'm sorry, how is talking about what people say elsewhere not a fair counterpoint to the claim that this stuff hasn't affected our PR? PR is literally "what people say elsewhere".

 

[AKM sama]

There has been a pretty consistent trend of people upset about your banners specifically

Care to point out how many times this happened? I only know of 2 incidents before in my 7 years that were brought up officially and in both incidents it was brushed aside by our staff members unanimously. I can link to them if needed. And I'd say it's pretty less number in 2555 days. I wouldn't call it consistent. I would call it blown out of proportion.

Do we also ban our most hardworking admin because people requested it 5 times in 7 years? Or do we also let our most hardworking bureau to step down because people said it 10 times in past 10 years? I am sure there are many corners in discord where people question the sense of judgment of most of our current staff, including you, but we aren't going to act on it. People also literally say elsewhere that we should shut our site down. That happens almost every year on discord or YouTube or other debating forums. Our wiki has been targeted for so many reasons but never has our wiki been targeted by any other party for this particular topic. It's imperative that we make decisions based on our process rather than listening to everything people say off-site.

PR doesn't mean we follow whatever few people say elsewhere. PR in our case means how different websites and fandom itself views us. If Fandom or Google finds problems in us, that will have a negative effect on us in the larger scale of things as our SEO and reputation will go down. Our reputation as a forum has never been bad and nobody sees us as "oh my god bad wiki because people have sexualized women as pfps". A more apt example would be curse words that do effect our PR. I would have also agreed, as I am sure other senior admins and bureaus who disagree would also do the same, if it was a valid point.

 

[Armorchompy]

Care to point out how many times this happened? I only know of 2 incidents before in my 7 years that were brought up officially and in both incidents it was brushed aside by our staff members unanimously. I can link to them if needed. And I'd say it's pretty less number in 2555 days. I wouldn't call it consistent. I would call it blown out of proportion.

There's a difference between "incidents that ended up with someone banned" and "people simply idly upset about it"- the latter is a pretty common topic. Shit, I've been in a few conversations about it.

Do we also ban our most hardworking admin because people requested it 5 times in 7 years? Or do we also let our most hardworking bureau to step down because people said it 10 times in past 10 years? I am sure there are many corners in discord where people question the sense of judgment of most of our current staff, including you, but we aren't going to act on it. People also literally say elsewhere that we should shut our site down. That happens almost every year on discord or YouTube or other debating forums. Our wiki has been targeted for so many reasons but never has our wiki been targeted by any other party for this particular topic. It's imperative that we make decisions based on our process rather than listening to everything people say off-site.

This is misrepresenting my point entirely. I'm not claiming you should be banned or punished at all. I am not even saying that the presence of controversy automatically means the signature should be removed. I am simply stating that your statement of "my signature has never caused any controversy" is provably false.

And also, there's a massive difference between the validity of "I think this mod's behavior is unacceptable", which is often coming from a biased POV, and "I think these images are too horny for our forum", which is still subjective but a lot more indicative of the average person's taste (and also, we take action to oppose exaggerated sexualization whereas we obviously don't punish "this guy is bad at battleboarding). If enough people do show that viewpoint, that is absolutely something that should be taken into account rather than brushed aside as "ew VSBW haters are hating again".

Our reputation as a forum has never been bad and nobody sees us as "oh my god bad wiki because people have sexualized women as pfps". A more apt example would be curse words that do effect our PR.

What? You're telling me saying the f word is more impactful than one of the wiki's three bureaucrats slapping softcore **** on the bottom of every single post he makes? That is ridiculous.

 

[Antvasima]

Just a note that the images that I just saw in AKM's signature, in the "About" section of his userpage, do not remotely qualify as softcore pornography. They are just standard images featuring female characters.

 

[Armorchompy]

They 100% meant to be titillating in nature (not all of them, several are fine, I mean the pictures of 2B, Tifa, Samus and maybe Mercy). I reverse searched the Samus picture and the first result was it being posted on a p*rn subreddit. I reverse searched the 2B picture and the first result was it being the profile picture on a p*rn facebook page. You can literally see Tifa's nipples through her clothes. They are also straight-up made by (hardcore) p*rn artists. Come on.

 

[Antvasima]

But with the possible exception of the initial Samus image, I genuinely do not think that any of the featured drawings of women look sexualised, and even she is wearing an entire body-covering jumpsuit, so I think that you are being oversensitive in this case.

My apologies, but, again, I think that we can use reasonable standards, but not 19th century level oversensitivity either.

 

[Armorchompy]

What you think is not any more important than what anyone else thinks- if you somehow hold the belief that a drawing of a woman posed to emphasize her massive breasts in clothing so tight that her nipples can be seen through them is not sexualized, I do not know how anyone can come to that conclusion but regardless it does not mean that you can just brush me off as a prude, which I am certainly not. But the drawings are pornographic- they were created by p*rn artists and posted on p*rn communities (I cannot post sources, for obvious reasons, but you can reverse-search the pictures yourself)- this much is objective.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I still do not think that the drawings themselves look remotely pornographic regardless of their original origins, and AKM likely found them from reposts in other places.

 

[Armorchompy]

So since they're apparently perfectly ok and not even remotely pornographic in nature, how would you feel if someone made a F&G thread encouraging people to share pictures of this genre? You'd just leave it up?

 

[Antvasima]

I would likely support closing it as that is not the intended point of our forum, but that does not mean that I consider outfits comparable to lots of regular everyday clothing, and images comparable to what you find in regular superhero comicbooks to be pornographic. That seems to be serious hyperbole.

 

[Armorchompy]

I would likely support closing it as that is not the intended point of our forum

Most things that go on in F&G aren't. I don't see you closing roleplays or meme threads, why is this different?

 

[Antvasima]

Most things that go on in F&G aren't. I don't see you closing roleplays or meme threads, why is this different?

Having fun is the intended point of our f&g forum, so I do not mind the kind of threads that you mentioned.

However, if people here began to systematically share drawings of pretty girls with each other in a discussion thread in our forum, most of them would likely be harmless, but some of our members would also very likely step over the line of what our rules currently allow, so it seems like an unnecessary risk, but maybe I am too cautious.

Regardless, I do not think that AKM has stepped over that line with the images in his signature. They seem harmless. I do not see the point of that kind of signature instead of providing automatic public service information like my own, but nevertheless it is not inherently harmful as I see it.

AKM's banner image is likely more arguable though.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Ideally I'd like both to go and I find some issue in his signature but yeah the banner is clearly the bigger offender

 

[Antvasima]

I just do not think that we need to have even stricter rules in this area than Fandom itself, as Fandom is known for being quite strict to begin with.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Fandom is strict in multiple areas, for better or for worse, so this isn't quite the same. I don't see any issue with going full PG-13 instead of this weird middle ground of above PG-13 but below 18+

 

[Antvasima]

Don't our current standards already qualify as PG-13 in terms of sexualised content? The more extreme part of our wiki is that quite a lot of pages link to Imgur-hosted images with very graphic violence in them.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think stuff like the banner falls more into that weird middle ground I was talking about, to be honest

 

[Antvasima]

Possibly, but I strongly doubt that the signature does.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

I think I overall agree with what AKM and DT have said, but SFW images/arts that come from actual NSFW sites or from artists that have it uploaded with their NSFW content should have to change their art/image once brought up

Images that lead to actual NSFW are problematic in my view, it doesn't have to be a strict rule, just a warning once noticed so it can be changed I feel like

 

[Antvasima]

That seems like a valid concern.

 

[AKM sama]

So since they're apparently perfectly ok and not even remotely pornographic in nature, how would you feel if someone made a F&G thread encouraging people to share pictures of this genre? You'd just leave it up?

Well, as I pointed out earlier, people did make threads for certain topics where sexualized pictures were posted. And we kept them open as long as images were within the reasonable boundaries. I literally linked to some of those threads earlier. They were ultimately closed only because people started crossing the line and we didn't feel like it was worth monitoring them constantly.

Images that lead to actual NSFW are problematic in my view, it doesn't have to be a strict rule, just a warning once noticed so it can be changed I feel like

I can agree to this. But I think we have a general rule for that. I think we disallow posting any images that are hosted on or directly link to NSFW websites. If people are able to go to a NSFW website by clicking on an image, I think it will automatically come under that particular rule.

 

[CloverDragon03]

How does this apply to art that links to artists who draw NSFW on the same site as their SFW work, for instance?

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

I can agree to this. But I think we have a general rule for that. I think we disallow posting any images that are hosted on or directly link to NSFW websites. If people are able to go to a NSFW website by clicking on an image, I think it will automatically come under that particular rule.

Yee, but this should also be the case whenever images are originally uploaded or associated with a NSFW website. Even if you are taking it from a NSFW site and then uploading it elsewhere for use, the image/art itself can still lead you to an actual NSFW site without directly linking the actual page

 

[Agnaa]

How does this apply to art that links to artists who draw NSFW on the same site as their SFW work, for instance?

Yee, but this should also be the case whenever images are originally uploaded or associated with a NSFW website. Even if you are taking it from a NSFW site and then uploading it elsewhere for use, the image/art itself can still lead you to an actual NSFW site without directly linking the actual page

I think that's really weird considering the verses we allow (which may originally be on platforms where **** is also available, such as book retailers and Steam), and since we allow Twitter WoG.

Like yeah, I get that we shouldn't unnecessarily link to things which are a few steps away from ****. But if you're talking about stuff like "If a user reverse-image-searches an image, and then goes to one of the originating websites, and continues to browse that website, they may find ****!" I think it's unreasonable to try to protect people from that, given the more easily-accessible routes already available to them.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I mean if they just know the artist, for example, and searching for that artist leads to NSFW stuff then I think that's kind of a bad sign as is. Most art that's in that above PG-13 but below 18+ area usually comes from 18+ artists that usually have an 18+ version of said art tbh

 

[Agnaa]

Quite a few artists with completely innocuous images also draw (and post) 18+ stuff. This happens even within official productions within every medium I can think of.

 

[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

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

I think that's really weird considering the verses we allow (which may originally be on platforms where **** is also available, such as book retailers and Steam), and since we allow Twitter WoG.

Well there's a difference between a website that allows NSFW content and a website that's meant to be a NSFW website but even then... I don't see how it's weird at all if the image/art itself from the one who made it, associated the image with NSFW.. This isn't even about being seemingly lewd content but actual Po** content it's associated with by the artist

But if you're talking about stuff like "If a user reverse-image-searches an image, and then goes to one of the originating websites, and continues to browse that website, they may find ****!" I think it's unreasonable to try to protect people from that, given the more easily-accessible routes already available to them.

No, that's not what I meant. If the image has a watermark on it for example and you type in the name of the artist, and the image of where it originally was uploaded redirects you to literal Po**, that is something that's problematic...

And even image-searching an image and it redirects you to a page that's uploaded with their Po** content, is also problematic

That's what I meant. Things like Twitter, Instagram and even Facebook have NSFW content but most independent Pages on those websites aren't directly associated with the NSFW content

 

[Agnaa]

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.