Hey if it stops people asking questions they already know the answer to while feigning ignorance then get some ripped, fleshed out rules in here pronto.

[quote="Mit"]the current rule looks pretty cut and dry to me, i don't think there needs to be anything else added to it (though i'm not sure genitalia as a word needs to be censored). should there be anything regarding putting things under warnings with spoilers? ie life drawings/minor swears/etc[/quote]Alright, thanks for the input. I'll let the other staffers decide whether to remove the ispoiler or not, I reckon. Hmm, how about: [quote][b]4) Be Family Friendly[/b] The message boards are intended to be a place that anyone of any age can enjoy. Keep swearing to a minimum, and don't attempt to bypass the swear filter. [list][*]Minor swears will not get you warned as long as you aren't being excessive with them, but we still don't encourage them. [*]Bigger ones should be avoided entirely, but if they appear in any media you're posting (and the media itself is relevant and reasonable enough), you need to have it in a spoiler tag with a warning beforehand.[/list][/quote] What do you mean by life drawings? [quote="Mit"]should there be a clear way to define how much of a warning someone will get based on the offense? right now it's very vague and inconsistent. maybe the warning system could be changed in general from a percentage system to a "strike" based system (x amounts of offenses will result in a ban of y length)[/quote]That's another thing we're working on. The warn point system as it's written and set up now is very outdated and more in the way than anything, or at least that's how I feel about it. We'll likely be adjusting it rather than changing out the system entirely, but we'll see. I feel like this can still be subjective or loose to some slight degree, though. I've found myself basing warns on prior history and "badness" of offense, to include any visible level of intent. The main thing we'll need to make clearer and more consistent is that center section. Lately we've been very talkative in our little staff chat place about this stuff, so we've been more on the same page internally, but we'll make an effort to make this sort of thing more clear publicly too. Just give us more time to get that ironed out. I think we'll be rolling out the new rules soon, but we'll be still working on this in particular.

What I think Mit means by life drawings is artistic nudity. It's not exactly pornographic in nature, but rather a demonstration/study of anatomy. While this is used in an offensive context is not tolerated, the use as a straight-up test of artistic prowess should be tolerated (provided it is in a spoiler, of course). By the way, can I chime in on the creation of the new rules and say that they should benefit users with good moral character? It's very easy to fall into the trap that talent and behavior are directly proportional to each other.

[quote="Miles"][quote="Pedigree"]I keep hearing that the images that BM and Zelma have posted of women dancing fall into a gray area for what's considered NSFW. Please clearly define this gray area before you issue any further warns on such subjects. Thank you. PS: Please do not define it with anything subjective. Thank you.[/quote] Tell me what you think of this. I'm thinking we'll add examples as bullet points to the NSFW rule, like this: [quote][b]1) No NSFW Material[/b] Do not post text, images, or media of a pornographic or sexually explicit nature. Don't post content depicting extreme violence, or anything else that would be unsafe for work. [list][*]If you must, please put it in a spoiler tag and give a clear warning, but keep its contents reasonable. This is supposedly to be a family friendly website. [*]To clarify further and to define "reasonable": we will not allow anything that has intent to look suggestive or worse. For example, an animated gif of zooming in specifically on feminine features, or an image that features whether explicitly or outlined (showing through clothes) any form of [ispoiler]genitalia[/ispoiler] will [b]not[/b] be permitted.[/list][/quote] Probably still too vague? Let me know.[/quote] Thank you. It shouldn't have taken this much effort to get an admin to elaborate on this btw. People have been asking what your problem with those GIFs are for weeks.

I want to change that a little. "Feminine features" isn't the right way to put it. Primary or secondary sex organs is one way to put it; this seems to me to include penis or vagina as primary, and boobs and butt as secondary. EDIT: swear filter lol. quote me if you want to see what it actually means I suppose EDIT 2: Maybe quoting doesn't get rid of the swear filter. Read as "include male-anatomy or female-anatomy as primary"

>there are literally official video game renders we can't post because of the "secondary sex organs" rule Guys, there is such a thing as going too far on censorship.

I really wish it wasn't necessary to have rules this elaborate.

>this elaborate this is the bare minimum for internet forum standards

[quote="Pedigree"]>there are literally official video game renders we can't post because of the "secondary sex organs" rule Guys, there is such a thing as going too far on censorship.[/quote] I was too vague. My bad. If the primary reason the photo was posted is to "show off" primary or secondary sex characteristics, that's bad. I feel like the GIFs were doing that. They were also irrelevant to anything else. OG Laura Croft would be fine. I'm sure any game renders except Bubble Bath Babes would also be fine under these rules. Idk how we'd handle BBB rips. I doubt that will come up. But never, ever post porn ever.

[quote="Pedigree"]>this elaborate this is the bare minimum for internet forum standards[/quote] I dunno mang, SMWC manages to do fine with its bare-bone rules. I'd say it depends on the community.

[quote="Vertette"][quote="Pedigree"]>this elaborate this is the bare minimum for internet forum standards[/quote] I dunno mang, SMWC manages to do fine with its bare-bone rules. I'd say it depends on the community.[/quote] i've seen some threads on smwc that are definitely not fine

[quote="BlasterMaster"]i've seen some threads on smwc that are definitely not fine[/quote] Yeah, me too. They do have a much bigger community than we do so I'd say an occasional not-fine thread is to be expected. Plus they actually banned Berkian. No offence to him, of course.

[quote="HylianDev"][quote="Pedigree"]>there are literally official video game renders we can't post because of the "secondary sex organs" rule Guys, there is such a thing as going too far on censorship.[/quote] I was too vague. My bad. If the primary reason the photo was posted is to "show off" primary or secondary sex characteristics, that's bad. I feel like the GIFs were doing that. They were also irrelevant to anything else. OG Laura Croft would be fine. I'm sure any game renders except Bubble Bath Babes would also be fine under these rules. Idk how we'd handle BBB rips. I doubt that will come up. But never, ever post porn ever.[/quote] definitely emphasis "context" then, which seems to be the problem here. not necessarily the gifs themselves. because what's the difference between posting the gifs and posting bayonetta dancing? i agree that the gifs were off-topic in some instances but still, that's more context than the gifs themselves.

[quote="Mit"]what's the difference between posting the gifs and posting bayonetta dancing? i agree that the gifs were off-topic in some instances but still, that's more context than the gifs themselves.[/quote] This is a good question. Context is important. But I can't think of many contexts where you'd post that (EDIT: "that" being the GIFs of the girls) and it be appropriate. Bayonetta is from a video game; we discuss video games. Also I have a feeling that she doesn't spread her legs and thrust her crotch while only wearing... what would you call them? They weren't panties but they were essentially panties I feel like. We can discuss Korean music too, but what context would make those GIFs not emphasizing their sexual characteristics? Also I think it's reasonable to say that if you set an IRL photo violation next to a CGI violation of the exact same type, the IRL one is inherently a worse violation.

Bayonetta doesn't wear anything like panties, it's a one-piece suit (made out of hair).

[quote="HylianDev"]Also I think it's reasonable to say that if you set an IRL photo violation next to a CGI violation of the exact same type, the IRL one is inherently a worse violation.[/quote] Why on earth would that be? Sexualized characters like Bayonetta and OG Tomb Raider are still infamously sexualized in their appearances.

[quote="Pedigree"][quote="HylianDev"]Also I think it's reasonable to say that if you set an IRL photo violation next to a CGI violation of the exact same type, the IRL one is inherently a worse violation.[/quote] Why on earth would that be? Sexualized characters like Bayonetta and OG Tomb Raider are still infamously sexualized in their appearances.[/quote] These two statements are non-sequitur. Bayonetta and OG Laura Croft can be infamously sexualized, and still less bad than IRL sexualization. That aside, it seems right to me that, say actual IRL pornography would be worse than someone trying to imitate it. There's a "Roblox Porn" video on YouTube, and it has genitals and all, but it's probably still there because it's not as bad as actual pornography. I think that the more detail you lose, the less bad it is.

you can make the same argument for the gifs though. if bayonetta and laura croft CAN be sexualized, then so can the gifs. it's just context and potentially seeing an implication where it's not technically there.

[quote="Mit"]you can make the same argument for the gifs though. if bayonetta and laura croft CAN be sexualized, then so can the gifs. it's just context and potentially seeing an implication where it's not technically there.[/quote] I think you misunderstood me; what I was saying is it's possible for Bayonetta's design to be sexualized while still being less bad than a photo of a person equally sexualized. That is, if you were replying to my post @ Pedigree.

[quote="HylianDev"][quote="Pedigree"][quote="HylianDev"]Also I think it's reasonable to say that if you set an IRL photo violation next to a CGI violation of the exact same type, the IRL one is inherently a worse violation.[/quote] Why on earth would that be? Sexualized characters like Bayonetta and OG Tomb Raider are still infamously sexualized in their appearances.[/quote] These two statements are non-sequitur. Bayonetta and OG Laura Croft can be infamously sexualized, and still less bad than IRL sexualization. That aside, it seems right to me that, say actual IRL pornography would be worse than someone trying to imitate it. There's a "Roblox Porn" video on YouTube, and it has genitals and all, but it's probably still there because it's not as bad as actual pornography. I think that the more detail you lose, the less bad it is.[/quote] I don't understand your view on this at all. If your goal is to keep MFGG family friendly and you don't wish to have images of women being sexualized, I don't think it's right to accept clearly sexualized characters that are blatantly marketed for such purposes over human women that are dancing that happen to have breasts and are dancing in a way you don't find wholesome. Bayonetta's sexualization is blatantly obvious, to the point that it's considered to be a parody and exaggeration of such characters in video games. Whether or not the subject of an image is a fictional character or not should not be a factor. At the same time I don't want to see characters that just happen to have breasts banned from the forum either. You really do need to find a balance if you intend to try to enforce family friendly. At the same time, it's not your job to be parents and supervise children. Anyone younger than 13 on the forum software is violating terms of service by registering an account here without permission from their parents. Furthermore, what are the statistics of member age? From what I can tell, most members here are actually adults. Requiring NSFW content to be hidden in a spoiler with a warning is 100% fine, imo, but I think you're taking family friendly too far.