GUIDELINE: NSFW material

[seebs]

(reserved)

[seebs]

I think this one is likely to come up enough to justify a static thread.

I propose text roughly to the effect of:

We have no policy against material which is inappropriate for workplace environments (NSFW) or for children. With that in mind, we ask that users exercise judgement and restraint. Outright porn is generally unwelcome. If an image you post gets deleted by one of the maintenance people, you can start a thread in Board Policy if you think they acted in error.

Images that might get people in trouble if displayed on a screen in a workplace should be hidden in some way, or linked to instead of included in posts.

---

Thoughts? If we reach a reasonable consensus, I'll edit the first post to contain that rule.

[imported_flesh99]

I think we could just use the examples and ask people to think about where their post would fall in the examples and go from there.

[praying]

Outright porn is generally unwelcome

So when is it welcome if it generally unwelcome that implies there are are times it would be deemed okay. Under what circumstances?

[seebs]

Outright porn is generally

So when is it welcome if it generally unwelcome that implies there are are times it would be deemed okay. Under what circumstances?

I don't know! However, I have never had an ironclad rule work well for me.

[Glass*Soul]

I think we could just use the examples and ask people to think about where their post would fall in the examples and go from there.

The examples?

[sparklecat]

Is that meant to imply that one can link to anything provided they clearly mark it as NSFW?

[gomichan]

I think they should also label the link.

Which is to say, no posting a link marked 'Pictures of my new roommate!' and linking it to Tub Girl.

Unless Tub Girl is your new roommate, in which case I assume you're asking for cleaning tips...

[seebs]

Is that meant to imply that one can link to anything provided they clearly mark it as NSFW?

I can conceive of links I'd edit out reflexively.

I guess part of the goal here is to solicit community feedback. Does anyone object to the janitors just nuking links that look like porn to us?

[gomichan]

I know you guys. I trust you to make that call.

[sparklecat]

I can conceive of links I'd edit out reflexively.

I guess part of the goal here is to solicit community feedback. Does anyone object to the janitors just nuking links that look like porn to us?

Yes. I don't like the precedent it sets, and I have no idea how reasonable I'd find your standards.





That said, I'm fairly sure I'm going to end up overruled on this one, and just want to be sure my dissent is registered in case you all turn into dictators and I need to say 'I told you so' :P

[imported_flesh99]

I can see links I would edit out as well. I can also see there may be times when I disagree on something that needs to be edited. I am willing to set aside some of my personal views for the good of the community as a whole. I don't think this policy will be one on which the community would split.

In being inclusive the point is not that all groups are equally comfortable as that is an impossible goal. I once heard a definition of compromise that makes more sense as I get older. Compromise is not when both parties are equally happy but rather when both are equally miserable. I know that sounds pretty sucky but there are times when you cannot make both parties happy at the same time. If we set aside our personal preferences then we can find ground where the comfort level is equal and in trying to be fair it ceases to matter whether the comfort is positive or negative. If both sides of an issue can find common ground where they are equally happy then we should rejoice. In the absence of that situation then we have to look at where the misery level for both parties is close to the same. Anything outside of that is inherently unfair to one party.

[BigToe]

I'm with Sparkle on being leery to just agree to let you edit out links as you see fit. If there is going to be some sort of community involvement, I think it needs to be pretty across the board. Perhaps a discussion on why said link should be removed and agreement by those who are involved in the thread.

[ravenscape]

I hereby declare that I will support any and all removals of tubgirl from this site. :shock:

[Captain Yesterday]

Query?

Could the NSFW forum description be modified to include material that we might feel is not quite appropriate for general public beyond just sex-related discussion?

For instance, I was thinking of a thread for sharing funny images/graphics that I just wouldn't feel quite right posting in the rest of the fora. Not because they are even remotely pRon but ... just because lol.

[seebs]

On the question of expanding the NSFW forum, I'm not sure. Without having seen the things, I'm not sure what their role in the community is.

Actually, it's "without having seen" that's the problem.

Premise: The goal of an anti-pr0n policy is to keep people from having to deal with porn here, on the grounds that they can easily go find some if they want to.
Premise: Our community wants to involve people in decisions.
Conclusion: In order to make sure that we are keeping people from having to deal with porn, we must make sure that the community has reached consensus on whether any given item is porn.

I think the problem here is obvious. I have no clue how to fix it; I think this is why I wanted to see some agreement on guidelines so we could use them in general and not require people to review every decision.

[imported_flesh99]

We could simply ask for trust, post the links in a forum that is member's only, and if anyone has any question about the handling on an issue they can bring it up here and it can be discussed. Removal with record keeping for oversight...

[Captain Yesterday]

Like I said, I was just thinking of a thread for non-tame graphic/pic sharing. Like these (I can edit them out if you think you'd also prefer not to have them in this portion of the forums), that I just wouldn't feel comfortable putting in the main section unless it was specifically said that they are ok. I'm just a pic-sharing junkie lol.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e193/SpaceMage/princessspanking.gif

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e193/SpaceMage/20040319l.jpg

[imported_flesh99]

I could see those going in a fluff forum with a tag warning people in the title of the thread! I am laughing...and may even have plenty of my own to share.

[Captain Yesterday]

Ok then :) Giving the thread a tag in the title to let folk know that some content might be objectionable sounds good. I just would have felt somehow wrong just putting it out there knowing that it would be annoying to some lol.

[imported_flesh99]

Ok then :) Giving the thread a tag in the title to let folk know that some content might be objectionable sounds good. I just would have felt somehow wrong just putting it out there knowing that it would be annoying to some lol.

And that is very considerate of you. You don't see that much online and it's really a breath of fresh air.

[gomichan]

So: use good judgment, warn in the thread title if it's likely to be objectionable, and if something's way over the top the janitors will disappear it, but be capable of restoring it if discussion establishes it had a reason to be there?

Sounds good to me.

[seebs]

I am not quite sure how we'd be able to restore it. I don't know whether phpbb has soft-delete.

[imported_flesh99]

If a post is just one link then it's an issue. If it is more then we remove the link itself and leave the post with a note as to where the removal can be reviewed.

[gomichan]

Ah, so rather than deleting or soft-deleting, you'd just move it? Where to? YIWT?

[praying]

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e193/SpaceMage/princessspanking.gif


LOL



http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e193/SpaceMage/20040319l.jpg

Even though Mario is funny I still believe this will be the case.

[Glass*Soul]

If the NSFW forum is made members only, does that mean that the forum won't even show up if we don't log in? I'm hoping the answer is yes. I would like to be able to lurk at work, but I won't if the forum shows up on the screen. I don't want to give even the vague impression that I have been or may be gettng ready to look at something inappropriate.

[seebs]

If the NSFW forum is made members only, does that mean that the forum won't even show up if we don't log in? I'm hoping the answer is yes. I would like to be able to lurk at work, but I won't if the forum shows up on the screen. I don't want to give even the vague impression that I have been or may be gettng ready to look at something inappropriate.

I like that notion. I like it rather a lot, in fact.

This strikes me as a compelling reason to make the forum members-only/hidden.

That said... Even the division between "members" and "non-members" bothers me some.

[Columbus]

If the NSFW forum is made members only, does that mean that the forum won't even show up if we don't log in? I'm hoping the answer is yes. I would like to be able to lurk at work, but I won't if the forum shows up on the screen. I don't want to give even the vague impression that I have been or may be gettng ready to look at something inappropriate.

I like that notion. I like it rather a lot, in fact.

This strikes me as a compelling reason to make the forum members-only/hidden.

That said... Even the division between "members" and "non-members" bothers me some.Oh, I like this. It isn't distinguishing between members and non-members. It is distinguishing between logged in members who know what they are logging into, and people who don't or don't want to at this time.
Tom

[Glass*Soul]

If the NSFW forum is made members only, does that mean that the forum won't even show up if we don't log in? I'm hoping the answer is yes. I would like to be able to lurk at work, but I won't if the forum shows up on the screen. I don't want to give even the vague impression that I have been or may be gettng ready to look at something inappropriate.

I like that notion. I like it rather a lot, in fact.

This strikes me as a compelling reason to make the forum members-only/hidden.

That said... Even the division between "members" and "non-members" bothers me some.

It would actually be a distinction between logged-on and not-logged-on, if we want to get real particular about it. :lol: But I understand your point. I think a lot of us here have a real hunger for as much transparency as possible and a forum that is at all hidden from anyone seems to go against that idea.

Something else that occurs to me is that I wouldn't want potential members to be uninformed that the forum existed and possibly be unpleasantly surprised after registering to discover that they had joined a discussion board with a NSFW section. That wouldn't be cool.

[sparklecat]

Well, if they're surprised to find the forum, and wouldn't have joined because of it, they're perfectly capable of not coming back.


Given that the division between members and non-members can be overcome by a rather simple signup process with no approvals necessary, I don't think it's a very troublesome one.

[Joykins]

About pr0n, if you want to allow it here you need to verify that members are over 18 and not just 13....

[imported_flesh99]

Joykins you are absolutely correct. I do not want the legal ramifications that come with pr0n. It's not all fun and games when it comes to allowing that. You get into copyright amongst myriad other issues. All morality aside I don't want the hassle with my provider either. I know this is a community and I know I swear I am not going to pull the "my server" card at all. But I would like the community to consider the problems it would cause me with my provider as well as the legal issues involved. I know that BBS's should fall under the common carrier clause but I don't want to have to deal with it at all.

[gomichan]

That's a perfectly reasonable consideration, and I doubt anyone will get cranky if they can't post something that violates your provider's TOS.