|
Post by Rider on Jan 5, 2006 16:39:43 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]*beats the "Too Many Connections" into a bloody pulp* *returns* So as we were discussing on the Tabloids-[/glow] Cute and Stretchy URL[glow=red,2,300]How far is too far? I know that I, as well as most of my fellow mods have been desensitized to all things crude and disturbing. Not to mention desensitized to violence (note the first line of this post. XD) and gore (like the rib cages showing on everyone's penguins.) When it comes to things like half-nude images, how far can you go? I don't want anyone getting in trouble for coming to the NTWF, but at the same time, I don't like censorship. So we need to find a happy medium somewhere. ^_^ Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to stick a telephone pole through that error page... (Thoughts? Opinions? Telephone poles?)[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Jan 5, 2006 16:50:56 GMT -5
Standards are a tricky, tricky subject, methinks.
As long as there's proper warning, most things should be fine. If there's a skin called "Stal in a Speedo," it's not hurting anyone unless they get modded (or decide to check it out for themselves). If a picture is posted on the NTWF Calendar thread, it's not hurting anybody unless they click on it. It's mostly avatars and signatures that are problematic, because they're not something you can pick and choose (and don't say, turn avatars off, because it's not fair to lose all avatars for the sake of a few).
Also, censorship standards would need to have a basis in realism. A cartoon in which a character is wearing boxer shorts should be fine, even as an avvie. A photograph of a person in boxer shorts (or less) would be more problematic, and should probably not be used as an avatar picture.
A good standard would be that nothing posted on the forum should get a forumer in trouble, unless they have to make a conscious choice to view it. This would probably have the effect of getting rid of most mentally scarring images from those who don't choose to view them.
Just my opinions...
|
|
|
Post by Kat on Jan 5, 2006 17:00:31 GMT -5
All pics that have some..erm...questionable content have to be put in URL tags instead of IMG tags so that people can freely choose whether they want to see it or not. That's the NTWF Calendar standard and we may as well implement it here as well.
Okay...photos of any people shirtless, yes, cannot be used as avatars. Personally, they make me very uneasy and can get me in trouble if my parents see those said avatars while I'm on the NTWF.
And tabloid terms STAY on the tabloids, especially in the Meridell!Knights thread, where "kill" can arouse a whole chain of posts which should have stayed on the tabloids.
|
|
|
Post by Rider on Jan 5, 2006 17:09:01 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]I think the Knight thread degenerated into another Tabloid. XD
It's true that standards are different in different countries. What one nation finds offensive might be nothing to another.
And yes, the name of the Stal skin has been changed. XD You have to admit; it was funny.[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Jan 5, 2006 17:09:36 GMT -5
Ehh, well I think this is all flagrant double standards. You'll all talk about "closeting" and have much more explicit conversations, yet you'll persecute Will (not beating around the bush with generalisations) for having an avatar of TV character who is on commercials during daytime TV. So it's OK to have implications of underage sex and pregnancy, yet... oh no, not the nudity! It's not even nudity!
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Jan 5, 2006 17:11:43 GMT -5
Ehh, well I think this is all flagrant double standards. You'll all talk about "closeting" and have much more explicit conversations, yet you'll persecute Will (not beating around the bush with generalisations) for having an avatar of TV character who is on commercials during daytime TV. So it's OK to have implications of underage sex and pregnancy, yet... oh no, not the nudity! It's not even nudity! The thing is, though, "closeting" is mostly kept to the Tabloids, which do have the reputation to keep people who don't want to deal with that kind of thing away. The avatar shows up all over the boards, without any warning. So it's not really how bad it is that's the problem, just the fact that it's not easily avoided.
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Jan 5, 2006 17:13:05 GMT -5
Ehh, well I think this is all flagrant double standards. You'll all talk about "closeting" and have much more explicit conversations, yet you'll persecute Will (not beating around the bush with generalisations) for having an avatar of TV character who is on commercials during daytime TV. So it's OK to have implications of underage sex and pregnancy, yet... oh no, not the nudity! It's not even nudity! The thing is, though, "closeting" is mostly kept to the Tabloids, which do have the reputation to keep people who don't want to deal with that kind of thing away. The avatar shows up all over the boards, without any warning. So it's not really how bad it is that's the problem, just the fact that it's not easily avoided. The tabloids are as easily accessable to any unsuspecting person as Will's av.
|
|
|
Post by Rider on Jan 5, 2006 17:15:44 GMT -5
The thing is, though, "closeting" is mostly kept to the Tabloids, which do have the reputation to keep people who don't want to deal with that kind of thing away. The avatar shows up all over the boards, without any warning. So it's not really how bad it is that's the problem, just the fact that it's not easily avoided. The tabloids are as easily accessable to any unsuspecting person as Will's av. [glow=red,2,300]But once you've been scarred by at Tabloids once, you never have to go back again. Alas for the fools that return. XD [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Jan 5, 2006 17:17:31 GMT -5
The thing is, though, "closeting" is mostly kept to the Tabloids, which do have the reputation to keep people who don't want to deal with that kind of thing away. The avatar shows up all over the boards, without any warning. So it's not really how bad it is that's the problem, just the fact that it's not easily avoided. The tabloids are as easily accessable to any unsuspecting person as Will's av. Maybe there should be a better warning on them than "prepare to abandon your sanity." But, words are generally less dangerous than images, especially when they're mainly innuendoes and not explicit descriptions. How about a PG-13 descriptor on Tabloid Town?
|
|
|
Post by neonick on Jan 5, 2006 17:19:54 GMT -5
The tabloids are as easily accessable to any unsuspecting person as Will's av. Maybe there should be a better warning on them than "prepare to abandon your sanity." But, words are generally less dangerous than images, especially when they're mainly innuendoes and not explicit descriptions. How about a PG-13 descriptor on Tabloid Town? Nobody on here should be under 13 anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Jan 5, 2006 17:23:35 GMT -5
Maybe there should be a better warning on them than "prepare to abandon your sanity." But, words are generally less dangerous than images, especially when they're mainly innuendoes and not explicit descriptions. How about a PG-13 descriptor on Tabloid Town? Nobody on here should be under 13 anyways. Should != is. We shouldn't have to take that into account, but we know there's younger people on there. Besides, the 'bloids can't be worse than PG-13, so any higher rating would be lying. Except I, for insanity. But that doesn't help people know about it. T, for Tabloid and Teen, could work, though.
|
|
|
Post by neonick on Jan 5, 2006 17:27:36 GMT -5
Nobody on here should be under 13 anyways. Should != is. We shouldn't have to take that into account, but we know there's younger people on there. Besides, the 'bloids can't be worse than PG-13, so any higher rating would be lying. Except I, for insanity. But that doesn't help people know about it. T, for Tabloid and Teen, could work, though. Why can't they be worse? Why as high as 13, what does it include that 12 year olds couldn't handle but a 13 year old could?
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Jan 5, 2006 17:32:33 GMT -5
Should != is. We shouldn't have to take that into account, but we know there's younger people on there. Besides, the 'bloids can't be worse than PG-13, so any higher rating would be lying. Except I, for insanity. But that doesn't help people know about it. T, for Tabloid and Teen, could work, though. Why can't they be worse? Why as high as 13, what does it include that 12 year olds couldn't handle but a 13 year old could? It's based on American movie ratings, which in themselves are fairly arbitrary. But, there's little in the Bloids that would be considered above that rating level, if considered as dialogue (which is more sense than images, anyway). And, if the existing Tabloid standards were held, it would stay within PG-13 even if it was played out visually. But, PG-13 movies have a warning (in the form of their rating), so the Bloids might find a use for one, too.
|
|
|
Post by neonick on Jan 5, 2006 17:36:44 GMT -5
Why can't they be worse? Why as high as 13, what does it include that 12 year olds couldn't handle but a 13 year old could? It's based on American movie ratings, which in themselves are fairly arbitrary. But, there's little in the Bloids that would be considered above that rating level, if considered as dialogue (which is more sense than images, anyway). And, if the existing Tabloid standards were held, it would stay within PG-13 even if it was played out visually. But, PG-13 movies have a warning (in the form of their rating), so the Bloids might find a use for one, too. How're we going to enforce a pg-13 rating with everyone aged 13 or over officially? You think kids are going to ask their parents to check over the Tabloids to see if they're suitable to go on? And anyways, why 13? 12 works just as fine over here, and the Tabloids aren't films... for a start, they're interactive.
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Jan 5, 2006 17:39:52 GMT -5
It's based on American movie ratings, which in themselves are fairly arbitrary. But, there's little in the Bloids that would be considered above that rating level, if considered as dialogue (which is more sense than images, anyway). And, if the existing Tabloid standards were held, it would stay within PG-13 even if it was played out visually. But, PG-13 movies have a warning (in the form of their rating), so the Bloids might find a use for one, too. How're we going to enforce a pg-13 rating with everyone aged 13 or over officially? You think kids are going to ask their parents to check over the Tabloids to see if they're suitable to go on? And anyways, why 13? 12 works just as fine over here, and the Tabloids aren't films... for a start, they're interactive. I wasn't saying we should enforce it- it seems to be able to enforce itself fairly well. All I was saying was that a warning (for instance, in the description of Tabloid Town) might be in order so that we can appease Tracy and those of like mind.
|
|