*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #40 on: October 26, 2015, 09:56:01 PM »
I appreciate the recommendation. I'd like to see more of them and a decision made.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #41 on: October 27, 2015, 08:03:00 AM »
From what I recall back when I was more involved in the management of the forum, these "inconsistencies" are deliberate. Our approach was always meant to be less rules and more common sense. Personally, I would like to think that this approach is still the right one. We want to treat our members like adults.

That said, I don't think we should consider ASCII-art to be NSFW, especially in CN. I'd say that would be the equivalent of the old site banning the word "nigger". A certain combination of characters shouldn't be forbidden.

Outside of CN, I can't really imagine a situation in which ASCII-art wouldn't be considered off-topic or non-contributive, so I imagine there shouldn't be a problem.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #42 on: October 27, 2015, 01:24:42 PM »
What's the difference between a NSFW ASCII image and a NSFW JPG image? It sounds like you think we should only recognize NSFW material that is above a certain resolution.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #43 on: October 27, 2015, 07:14:41 PM »
What's the difference between a NSFW ASCII image and a NSFW JPG image? It sounds like you think we should only recognize NSFW material that is above a certain resolution.
That's precisely right. I would consider an otherwise NSFW JPEG with the crucial parts pixelated to be OK. This tends to be common practice within all kinds of media.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #44 on: October 27, 2015, 07:19:52 PM »
That's precisely right. I would consider an otherwise NSFW JPEG with the crucial parts pixelated to be OK. This tends to be common practice within all kinds of media.

I don't agree with that practice.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2015, 07:20:20 PM »
I don't agree with that practice.
ok

Would you like to propose an alternative?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2015, 07:20:42 PM »
I don't agree with that practice.
ok

Would you like to propose an alternative?

An alternative to what?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #47 on: October 27, 2015, 07:21:39 PM »
An alternative to what?
My proposal for where to draw the line between NSFW and non-NSFW content, of course.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #48 on: October 27, 2015, 08:42:45 PM »
An alternative to what?
My proposal for where to draw the line between NSFW and non-NSFW content, of course.

How is there a line that requires drawing? If it looks like it's NSFW, we remove it. This shouldn't necessitate some asinine semantic debate on the qualities of NSFW.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #49 on: October 27, 2015, 09:29:30 PM »
How is there a line that requires drawing? If it looks like it's NSFW, we remove it. This shouldn't necessitate some asinine semantic debate on the qualities of NSFW.
I agree, but you decided to start one, so I thought you wanted your claims to be addressed.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #50 on: October 27, 2015, 09:54:18 PM »
How is there a line that requires drawing? If it looks like it's NSFW, we remove it. This shouldn't necessitate some asinine semantic debate on the qualities of NSFW.
I agree, but you decided to start one, so I thought you wanted your claims to be addressed.

This is always what happens.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #51 on: October 28, 2015, 03:55:30 PM »
Rule 7 is currently:

7. Do not post NSFW material (applies in all fora)

Do not post material which is overly pornographic, shocking or otherwise inappropriate for being viewed without warning in a public or work place. As much as we would like for you to be able to post freely, we also want to keep this website a safe places for people of all professions and ages to use.

Material of this nature will be removed on sight, and the offending poster warned. On your second offence, you will receive a month-long ban, with increasing ban duration for repeated offences upon your return.



If I am browsing at work and open a thread with a giant ASCII penis, that seems to violate the spirit of the rule, as it would be frowned upon in most work environments. However, I also think that can fall under the category of needing a warning tag and not necessarily be banned content. To me, crude ASCII art is different than a graphic porn image of people. Granted, it would be simpler to ban all NSFW images of any kind, even if our favorite post what you'd hit thread would have to be removed.

*

Offline lolwut?

  • *
  • Posts: 1160
  • -flatearther43.2
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #52 on: October 28, 2015, 06:59:46 PM »
Rule 7 is currently:

7. Do not post NSFW material (applies in all fora)

Do not post material which is overly pornographic, shocking or otherwise inappropriate for being viewed without warning in a public or work place. As much as we would like for you to be able to post freely, we also want to keep this website a safe places for people of all professions and ages to use.

Material of this nature will be removed on sight, and the offending poster warned. On your second offence, you will receive a month-long ban, with increasing ban duration for repeated offences upon your return.



If I am browsing at work and open a thread with a giant ASCII penis, that seems to violate the spirit of the rule, as it would be frowned upon in most work environments. However, I also think that can fall under the category of needing a warning tag and not necessarily be banned content. To me, crude ASCII art is different than a graphic porn image of people. Granted, it would be simpler to ban all NSFW images of any kind, even if our favorite post what you'd hit thread would have to be removed.

If I am browsing at work and open a thread with the n-word repeated over and over again, that seems to violate the spirit of the rule, as it would be frowned upon in most work environments. 

Please address this as the n-word is showing up in many CN posts, many times as of late.
-flatearther43.2

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #53 on: October 28, 2015, 08:23:26 PM »
This forum does not ban the word "nigger" or consider it NSFW.

*

Offline lolwut?

  • *
  • Posts: 1160
  • -flatearther43.2
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #54 on: October 28, 2015, 09:36:18 PM »
This forum does not ban the word "nigger" or consider it NSFW.
but there is a potential problem with ascii dicks? Wow...
-flatearther43.2

*

Offline lolwut?

  • *
  • Posts: 1160
  • -flatearther43.2
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #55 on: October 28, 2015, 10:08:12 PM »
May I also add:

I may be a shit poster, but this takes shit posting to a hole new lvl.  Let me ask you this:  How is seeing a pic of a woman's breasts considered NSFW, but swastikas and infinite amounts of n-words completely fine?

Just take a look a this thread:  http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3678.0
« Last Edit: October 28, 2015, 10:15:50 PM by lolwut? »
-flatearther43.2

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 2979
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #56 on: October 29, 2015, 07:47:25 AM »
May I also add:

I may be a shit poster, but this takes shit posting to a hole new lvl.  Let me ask you this:  How is seeing a pic of a woman's breasts considered NSFW, but swastikas and infinite amounts of n-words completely fine?

Just take a look a this thread:  http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3678.0


They're trying to be more lenient in rule-making, however it seems like they've simply made a set of different rules that are still just as poorly thought out and implemented as the old site. Maybe your perspective changes when you become a moderator. Who knows. But I think swastikas and racial slurs are definitely NSFW material. If they aren't, I'm not really sure what is. I love freedom of speech, but that's not really what the lower boards promote. More of a pseudo, cherry picked style of freedom of speech is what they're going for I reckon.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #57 on: October 29, 2015, 07:49:30 AM »
How so? You seem to misconstrue intent behind posts simply for your own reasons. It's very much a "freedom of speech" thing, and I practically never see any complaints about it, so it mustn't be hurting anyone.
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #58 on: October 29, 2015, 08:09:19 AM »
Again, I can't discuss the current execution of the rules, since I'm not involved in it, but allow me to clarify what my (and, I believe, general) understanding was around the time of the rules' creation:

For a moment, let's pretend that CN/AR doesn't exist. They're a special case to which I'll return later.

Our forum is supposed to imitate a content-liberal-but-still-legal medium of a more traditional type (like a TV station). On such a hypothetical station, most content would be generally allowable in the right context. For example, you wouldn't get banned for discussing the history of racial slurs and naming them plentifully as part of that conversation. However, you would probably have your post moved elsewhere if your contribution was nothing but a slew of insults and threats. Now, pornographic or otherwise graphic content wouldn't work quite the same. Usually, the expectation would be that the imagery be at least partially censored in most cases.

CN/AR is where it gets slightly trickier, because most contextual clues for rules execution no longer apply. This may things seem contradictory or poorly thought through, but to me it's a sensible balance between no censorship at all and thorough censorship of anything and everything that someone may consider controversial. On the Internet, it's quite feasible to run into a swastika while browsing relatively uncontroversial sites (let's use Wikipedia as an example). It is, however, extremely unlikely for one to encounter (uncensored) porn or gore within the same context.

In the end of the day, I believe it was always a general consensus that CN wouldn't really have a strong set of rules or guarantees surrounding it. We have on several occasions explained that CN and AR come with a content advisory, and that people will need to make their own call for whether or not these boards are safe to browse at their workplace/school/indoor soccer hall/bar. We have also offered the option for people to opt out of CN/AR access if they feel that it affects them negatively in other ways.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline lolwut?

  • *
  • Posts: 1160
  • -flatearther43.2
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #59 on: October 29, 2015, 12:29:49 PM »

In the end of the day, I believe it was always a general consensus that CN wouldn't really have a strong set of rules or guarantees surrounding it. We have on several occasions explained that CN and AR come with a content advisory, and that people will need to make their own call for whether or not these boards are safe to browse at their workplace/school/indoor soccer hall/bar. We have also offered the option for people to opt out of CN/AR access if they feel that it affects them negatively in other ways.

If, "in the end of the day", people will need to make their own calls, why have the NSFW rule at all since it seems impossible to define NSFW?
-flatearther43.2