01/23/13 09:37PM
NSFW Rule discussion.
This forum thread has been created to discuss the limiting role of the NSFW rule, specifically regarding post #87028. For earlier parts of the discussion go there, but please keep debate on the subject limited to this thread.

I'm going to put what my reasoning for deleting 87028 would be. Whether or not I act upon that reasoning will depend on what you guys think and say.

I am personally leaning towards deleting it because it is overtly sexual. Firstly: Yes, Damara is a very sexual character. Yes, we have seen things like horse dildos in canon. To these arguments I respond that the rule is designed to limit the kind of content we publish on this board. The amount of sexualization associated with canon is irrelevant because what's under discussion is how we want to present our board rather than what Homestuck readers should be able to tolerate. We're not here to give people everything they can handle. Secondly: Yes, we have kept images containing nudity in the past. My reasoning behind wanting to delete the image is influenced by the reasoning behind those decisions: The images were kept because it was felt the nudity was artistic in nature and intended for purposes other than arousal. In this case, I feel the image is specifically sexual in nature, and thus not permissible by the spirit of the rule.

The question for me is not whether there's a nipple or not. I am prefectly willing to be flexible in that regard. I am far more concerned with the sexual nature of the image. The point of the rule is to avoid pornographic materials, and this I feel comes too close to that to remain.
01/23/13 10:46PM
Question, how is post #87028 more sexual than post #72580 which people seemed to be okay with? If anything, the former image portray Damara flashing to the audience to get a rise out of them with the artist censoring it, while the latter is Damara being just sexy with side nudity. And what about this post #73217 which is a pretty obvious gesture Damara is performing--do we get rid images of characters doing naughty signs like this? And then there are a few of images in the dat_rack, dat_bulge, dat_rump, etc. pool that are obviously drawn with sexual intent even though those parts are mostly covered.

Not to mention there are several images that has implied sex between characters(see all those sprite manips of characters switching clothing for example).

What I'm overall asking is, why did this one image set a very few people off and not the others?

01/24/13 01:01AM
I really, really do not understand the excitement this image in particular has caused. I really really don't. This is the kind of thing the questionable tag was made for, and I'm perfectly okay with it staying.

Honestly, I feel like the nudity in that image has an intended purpose that is more comedic than arousing anyway, although we do have more arousing images than that...

I agree with pretty much everything Chocoboo said too. yeah.
01/24/13 02:11AM
Answer #1: It isn't. I didn't happen to see 72580 by chance, and it didn't get my attention via people commenting on it because nobody did. Should I delete 87028, I would probably get rid of 72580 as well.

[Not-exactly-]Answer #2: Now that is an excellent point. At what point does it become a violation of the rule? I'm not altogether sure, but I'm gonna say that just being associated with sex isn't enough, just as nudity itself isn't enough. It has to be an overtly sexual image, not just one that makes reference to sex.

RE why this one: It's just luck of the draw and the snowball effect, really. As Chocobo pointed out, this isn't worse than 72580 and there was nary a peep about that. It's the same effect that sometimes brings up stuff in the comments section that is only decent while some epic-tagged stuff languishes in the archives, only to be found if you deliberately look through that tag.

RE nobooks 1: Someone made a point on that subject during the conversation in the picture comments. The gist of it is that there's some pretty worthwhile stuff in the Questionable category, eg the aforementioned artistic nudes that we decided to keep. Part of the reason for the nsfw rule, I feel, is to make it so that people can come here without worrying about that kind of thing at all, without having to blacklist and miss good stuff.

RE nobooks 2: I think you're right, and it does. I don't think it's enough of a shift of purpose to justify leaving it, though. The comedy of it does exist, but it doesn't preclude the sexuality of it, and in fact, rather relies on it.
01/24/13 02:49AM
Now that is an excellent point. At what point does it become a violation of the rule? I'm not altogether sure, but I'm gonna say that just being associated with sex isn't enough, just as nudity itself isn't enough. It has to be an overtly sexual image, not just one that makes reference to sex.

Then I wouldn't say that post ##87028 is an overtly sexual image since it is not intended to stimulate the viewer that way. I would argue certain images that would be deemed sfw just because the huge boobs are covered are more sexual since that was the intent(ex. planetofjunk's work).
01/24/13 04:02AM
Well, I didn't say anything about intent to arouse. Something can be nsfw-style overtly sexual without the intent to stimulate the viewer, although that is most commonly the case. This image, as noted, is actually a great case in point. The purpose of the picture, as noted by nobooks, is comedic rather than pornographic. However, the comedy relies on the sexual nature of the image and character. Yes, the stuff you mention is more intentionally sexual in nature, but it would still be considered technically sfw because of the lack of nudity. This one contains nudity that is sexual in nature, and thus I think should be considered nsfw.
By precedent, nudity by itself isn't enough to fall afoul of the rule. Likewise, as you have pointed out, sexuality without nudity is also by precedent tolerated. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, because the lack of a definitive line is what keeps causing this debate. The portrayal of nudity (even censored nudity) in a deliberately sexual manner should be considered nsfw under this rule.
01/24/13 04:32AM
Chocoboo said:
What I'm overall asking is, why did this one image set a very few people off and not the others?

Because this comes from a skilled artist who pays attention to detail, which is evident from the rest of the images in this series. Nobody would give a shit if this were drawn in a crude stick figure style with large breasts and nipple dots with a single line through them. The artist should have known that in order to make a female sex joke, they have to handicap their drawing style and make it as lowbrow as the humor so as to not accidentally cause boners, consistency be damned. It's ok if it's a male genital though, veiny penises with wrinkly balls are inherently hilarious because of how strange and gross they look, you'd seriously have to be fucked in the head to get aroused from something like that (like Horuss).
01/24/13 04:36AM
^To be honest, I'd rather avoid realistic dicks, too, but the sentiment seems to have been against getting rid of that kind of thing even more than it has against this kind of thing, so I'm kind of hesitant. Also, I don't really understand most other males' attitudes about dicks, so in the past I've tried to avoid the subject altogether.
01/24/13 10:44AM
Here's a question: if your teacher/parent(s)/boss happened to look at your screen as you viewed this image, would you get in trouble for it? Would you get scolded or reprimanded for it? If the answer is yes, it probably doesn't belong here.

I think that's a pretty good rule of thumb for all the images on the booru, really. As a SFW board it's not about what we personally think, but what an outsider might potentially think if they were to come across any given image here.

I'm not in charge and have no real say, but that's my two cents.
01/24/13 11:40AM
Taking that into account, most of the images with the blacklisted/trigger warning tags would have to go.
01/24/13 08:47PM
No Homestuck is work safe.
01/24/13 08:56PM
I'm not turning this into a crusade or anything. I'd just be getting rid of the stuff that came to my attention, using my judgement according to my interpretation of the rule as I described it.
01/25/13 02:46AM
*brings images under those tags to your attention*
01/25/13 04:31AM
If you guys have ever taken a look at a lot of other boorus, their questionable tag is way more questionable. Ours is. almost safe. Like.

It seems silly to me to go and censor the questionable rating, whose whole purpose is images like this, and make it more sfw?

About the booru's image: We do not have porn, this does not even fall in the realm of porn, we are a sfw booru. There. Done.

And honestly, I would be more concerned about someone looking over my shoulder and seeing me looking at horse dildos than a censored image that has less than a quarter of a nip in it. Nipples are hardly offensive, or pornographic, and you can't even see any of it unless you're looking really hard.
01/25/13 09:31PM
I don't care about whether there's a nipple in it or not. But we need to decide what our no nsfw-rule even means! Do you want to know why we have so much stuff that we can't decide about? Because every time something like this comes up, we point to all the other stuff we can't decide about and say that it's still here! If we don't draw the line here, please tell me where we do! Because right now, this rule is absolutely unenforceable!
We either need to state a definitive boundary for the no-nsfw rule that the mods can actually ACT ON, or we need to get rid of it. Trying to avoid inflexible censorship is one thing, but we've taken this rule to the opposite extreme of being so flexible as to be meaningless.
1 2>>>

Reply | Forum Index