More Clarification And Consistent Enforcement of the "Borderline NSFW" Rule

[Shanks 10,816]

I talked to Artemis and ran what I was going to say by him before I posted this and he said this was okay.

I apologize in advance for making this a huge wall ot text, but I believe this is an important issue and I want to be as thorough as possible.

I have had the idea for this particular thread for a very long time and have decided to post it because I believe that the way the "borderline NSFW" rule here has been applied in an inconsistent manner that often makes it a bit confusing as to what is actually allowed on here. I have talked to a few other members on here via PM that seem to agree. I realize there are certain cases that are a tad more complex than others but it seems that even moderators don't seem to be on the same page on this matter. Clarifying this further and making things more consistent I believe will be a win for both the users as well as the staff as it will cause less inadvertant breaking of said rule and could also improve user morale.

One user I talked to has said that he is afraid to address any topic even the slightest bit sexual because of this even though it is clearly within the rules to talk about sexual subjects so long as people don't go into graphic detail. I am sure there are others who may in fact feel the same way, when users are afraid to say certain things on any subject. While going to a moderator when you are not sure if something is innapropriate or not is good advice which I am sure some of you on staff may give and I of course agree with it when users wonder if anything even the slightest bit sexual may get them in trouble and they feel they have to go to a moderator for everything than I believe that is a problem.

I and some other users have seen certain images and other material be taken down because it is judged as "borderline NSFW" while material which is just as close or even closer to it has been left alone. Case in point is the most attractive pony tournament held last year, which you can see at the link below.

http://mlpforums.com...ournament-2013/

Most of the images posted are well within the realm of the rules however some of the images are while they are not full blown NSFW are fairly suggestive and because of the lack of a clear definition of "borderline NSFW" could have easily been removed and result in said warning but have been left alone. I looked through that thread carefully a few days ago and you can find said images on pages page 48,46, 45,44,42, 41,39, 37,36,34,33 and 23. One such image is very similar to an Applejack image that I posted that was removed by a moderator and it is this Octavia pic which I shall call "exhibit A" for ass.

This same user also brough to my attention a glaring inconsistency in two disciplinary decisions. One being a 2 day suspension of a user who posted Nazi Rarity pictures in the March Madness Tournament thread and gory images of Rarity in the Rarity fanclub thread. While another user was given a 7 day suspension and nearly banned for posting graphic content of a man shooting a dog in order to raise awareness of an incident of animal cruelty. While the judgment of the user who was nearly banned was arguably bad and the content he posted was innapropriate it begs the question as to why who was miguided but had the best intentions got a 7 day suspension for graphic content yet someone who openly flamed and trolled only got a 2 day suspension.

Another user I have spoken with on this matter was recent cited for "borderline NSFW" for an edited show screen shot. I saw the screenshot in quesiton and don't see how it was innapropriate as nothing sexual was added to said pic. The pictures I mentioned in the "most attractive pony tournament" thread are far far closer to "borderline NSFW" than that particular pic.

Edited July 16, 2014 by EarthbendingProdigy

[King 5,625]

I feel the reason this seems as inconsistent as it has in the past is due to the fact its discussed on a case by case basis, rather then being something written in stone. As such, some enforcement can comes off as inconsistent.

I feel we as moderators and admins can posibly provide more clarification to the borderline rule and will be happy to bring this up to the others in a suitable environment.

Personally, If I myself was to put a definition on borderline NSFW, it would be the following:

Any content, in any form, that can be accurately described as inappropriate without going into extreme detail (such as a violent avatar that isn't full on gorey) will be deemed as borderline NSFW. This is still subject to discussion as per most other offences.

That's off the top of my head of course, would probably use some more clarification but thats the gist of it.

Punishment for borderline NSFW is usually 250 points. It can be increased and decreased depending on the case and suspensions can be added for those who are repeat offenders. That could also be why it seems the punishment are inconsistent at times.



 

[Shanks 10,816]

I feel the reason this seems as inconsistent as it has in the past is due to the fact its discussed on a case by case basis, rather then being something written in stone. As such, some enforcement can comes off as inconsistent.

And that is exactly why so many users are frustrated with this policy, how is someone supposed to follow a rule if there is no clear guideline? Mildly suggestive topics and pics are allowed but borderline NSFW are not which is understandable but the problem is that the decisions to remove or keep certain posts seems to rest on a rather thin line.

 

 

Punishment for borderline NSFW is usually 250 points. It can be increased and decreased depending on the case and suspensions can be added for those who are repeat offenders. That could also be why it seems the punishment are inconsistent at times.

Yes whether or not someone is a repeat offender should be considered but I believe intent should also be considered. A suspension for the person who posted the violent video to raise awarness about animal cruelty arguably used bad judgment as I have said before but the intent is clearly different from someone who simply posted a violent video to troll or for mere shock value. I can't see that users warn history because I am not a moderator but I can reasonably infer that it is likely that the user who got the 2 day suspension for the nazi Rarity pics is a bit more likely to have a worse rap sheet so to speak.

[King 5,625]

And that is exactly why so many users are frustrated with this policy, how is someone supposed to follow a rule if there is no clear guideline?

The issue with having something set in stone is that it can also bind moderators. Members have in the past tried to find loop holes in the rules which is why they were originally designed to be guidelines and not "law".

 

We can for sure make this guideline more clear, but I don't feel we can ever set in stone what is considered borderline.

 

but I believe intent should also be considered.

Intent is certainly considered already. We know some members do not intend to break a rule and as such, we treat them accordingly. Intent is only one of many things taken into account though. As stated before, warning history is also taken into account amongst some other factors.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Dawn Rider

[Shanks 10,816]

The issue with having something set in stone is that it can also bind moderators. Members have in the past tried to find loop holes in the rules which is why they were originally designed to be guidelines and not "law".

Actually it seems like that is exactly what the current policy is doing, the more needlessly complicated something is the more likely someone is to find loopholes around it. When something is more clear and conscise it is easier for the user to follow and easier for moderators to punish when members violate. There are always going to be trouble makers I won't deny that and hashing things out won't be easy but this sort of inconsistency is breeding frustration and resentment which both do not need to exist. Sure not everyone can be happy but that dosen't mean we all together both users and staff shouldn't have a discussion about this matter and come to some kind of agreement.

Edited July 16, 2014 by EarthbendingProdigy

[King 5,625]

 

 

When something is more clear and conscise it is easier for the user to follow and easier for moderators to punish when members violate.

However, its essentially telling people doing "this and this is wrong", someone can look at this and find something that isn't mentioned in hopes of getting around that rule.

It only takes common sense to understand what is appropriate and what isn't. It's not all left on the rules to explain that, which is why most of its a guideline rather then a set in stone policy.

If we can make it a slightly clearer guideline, then that is all that should be required at this point in time. People should have a clearer understanding of what type of content is allowed and not allowed.

[Panne 1,342]

My one beef is the "this is getting out of hand" excuses that has been used on so many clop threads. Even if everything is going well and there are no flame wars a moderator will swoop in and shut it down because it was "out of hand" or "will be soon". Even without anything NSFW being posted.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Ami Mizuno

[King 5,625]

My one beef is the "this is getting out of hand" excuses that has been used on so many clop threads. Even if everything is going well and there are no flame wars a moderator will swoop in and shut it down because it was "out of hand" or "will be soon". Even without anything NSFW being posted.

9/10 this is a preemptive measure. Clop threads have caused trouble in the past and its a topic we don't allow for discussion at this time due to that. Better it be shut down before it gets to the point that warnings are needed.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Dawn Rider

[Jeric 46,851]

I'm curious, if a user has any questions on whether something would be considered NSFW, would they be allowed to vet the images with a Moderator or Admin?

 

My view: Whatever the points about posting inconsistency are, I think that both the Mod and User judgment is fairly sound here. I don't recall ever browsing and seeing an image that made me stop and think, "I hope my kid didn't see that." While I may be more liberal that some parents, still it tells me that in general ... or at least in the last few months ... NSFW content rules have been successfully enforced.

 

Then again, I have no idea how long the reported post list is here. Could be that the mods are constantly deleting posts with NSFW content and I just don't see it. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

[King 5,625]

 

 

I'm curious, if a user has any questions on whether something would be considered NSFW, would they be allowed to vet the images with a Moderator or Admin?

Of course. If a user isn't sure whether something is borderline then they are free to ask a moderator about it. As for full blown NSFW, Im sure people understand whether something is clearly NSFW or not (aka porn, gore and glorifying drug usage)

[ghostfacekiller39 23,860]

This same user also brough to my attention a glaring inconsistency in two disciplinary decisions. One being a 2 day suspension of a user who posted Nazi Rarity pictures in the March Madness Tournament thread and gory images of Rarity in the Rarity fanclub thread. While another user was given a 7 day suspension and nearly banned for posting graphic content of a man shooting a dog in order to raise awareness of an incident of animal cruelty.

This isn't something that can be explained other than being just a flat-out screw up on the staff's part, and I lost a lot of faith in the MLPF staff because of the way that was handled. 

 

I don't think that report was even discussed. Actually, fuck it, I know for a fact that the report for the gore pic in the Rarity Fan Club wasn't discussed because I talked about it with the staff for weeks and an admin told me recently that it was opened and shut and that the obvious context of the post in the RFC was likely missed by the staff member who handled it. It was shoddily done and it really should've been looked into more. That's just wrong and, as a member of both this site and the Rarity fan club, I feel wronged by the staff due to the poor handling of that situation.

 

The rules should be looked into more about the handling of NSFW material, if only to prevent these sort of screw-ups on the staff's end and make things a bit more fair for everyone involved, because the Rarity Fan Club got screwed and the guy who posted that probably just laughed at how light the punishment was.

 

I will say a lot has changed since the incident for with the dog, but there's no excuse for the way the incident in the Rarity Fan Club was handled. None. That's why I totally agree with your sentiment, EBP.

Edited July 16, 2014 by ghostfacekiller39

[SCS 7,537]

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that the borderline NSFW rule should receive more clarification and subsequent consistency in regard to enforcement. Unfortunately, this is far easier said than done.
 
The subject of what is or is not borderline NSFW is inherently nebulous, and it doesn't help things that overall consideration of what may or may not be NSFW is subjective at its core. Only a few specific types of material can "objectively" be considered NSFW: pornography, graphic violence, and glorification and/or graphic depiction of drug usage or paraphernalia. And this is only true as a result of popular perception. 
 
Inherently, what is or is not appropriate is a subjective matter. Everyone has a different moral outlook on the world, everyone has a different level of tolerance for various behavior or material, and everyone responds to what they encounter in different ways. In light of this fact, I am highly skeptical that we would ever be able to design a borderline NSFW rule, or any rule for that matter, that would make everyone happy.
 
The borderline NSFW rule is designed to be a catch-all for a massive gray area: material that is not necessarily "NSFW" but still beyond what we are comfortable with allowing on this forum. Could we make it more specific? Possibly, and I'm certainly open to suggestions for how to do so. That being said, there is no way we could ever list out every single way in which something could be considered borderline NSFW, and even if we could that would likely have unintended consequences. If the rules become too large and unwieldy that may frighten people: many people may not have the time or energy to read highly extensive rules and may not be able to remember all of them, resulting in unnecessary stress and complication. 

That is why a balance at all times is key. The rules could certainly benefit from being more specific, but only to a certain point. I don't want to overcomplicate anything.
 
Additionally, no matter how much clarification was brought to the borderline NSFW rule, it would ultimately remain what it truly is: a catch-all. There is no way we could feasibly list out every single type of behavior that would be against the rules, but we still reserve the right to take something down if it goes against the standards we have for this community in order to ensure its well-being, as well as its friendliness and appropriateness for a 13+ audience. While I'm not saying we shouldn't add clarification because of this fact, I am saying that it will not alter the true nature of this rule.
 
In regard to consistency of enforcement, there is another factor to consider: moderators cannot possibly see everything. Just because you encountered something doesn't mean any moderator or administrator knows it exists. That is why there is a report system. If you encounter something that you feel is inappropriate, you should report it. There is a massive amount of material posted here 24/7. No matter how large the moderation and administration teams were, we would never see everything. We will take action on what we see, but some things will slip through the cracks. 
 
Many people view that as evidence of bias, when in actuality it is not. It is the unfortunate fact of the matter that things will always slip through the cracks at times, because there is no way the moderation team could ever possibly see everything.
 
In conclusion, I agree that more clarification can and should be brought to the borderline NSFW rule, and I am open to suggestions for how to do so. However, I also want to ensure that people understand the true nature of this rule and its enforcement, and the fact that while some clarification would benefit the rule and subsequently the community, its true nature is unalterable due to the manner and scope of content it addresses.

[Panne 1,342]

Of course. If a user isn't sure whether something is borderline then they are free to ask a moderator about it.

I've done that before and let me tell you it doesn't work. I asked a mod and he was okay with the picture so then I posted it and another mod dropped in and removed it. At that point I didn't even feel like appealing for it so I just rolled over and gave up. I mean I could have told them that another mod okayed it but seriously it is just a hassle.

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

 

 

However, its essentially telling people doing "this and this is wrong", someone can look at this and find something that isn't mentioned in hopes of getting around that rule.

 

You could just make more elaborate extension the rules in an attempt to cover all the possibilities (I could attempt to write such a thing), and create a clause at the end saying, "Any images that do not technically violate this criteria but still is overly suggestive will be subject to peer review and will be judged accordingly."

 

Or something of that nature.

 

However, I understand the con of there being a bit more work and effort behind that. Perhaps if we are extensive enough with the clarification of the rules, that clause might not be necessary.

 

There really are only a finite number of possibilities.

 

 

 

It only takes common sense to understand what is appropriate and what isn't. It's not all left on the rules to explain that, which is why most of its a guideline rather then a set in stone policy.

 

Absolutely agreed...but common sense aint that common.

 

You will have users that will play dumb and make problems, but if a truly complete and thorough list of specifying rules can be created, this will at least leave them without excuse or room to complain.

 

I think that if moderation could be persuaded into making the "guidelines" a little more law-like, we should all collaborate together to create this extensive set of rules and stipulations that can cover all contingencies that we may possibly come across.

[SCS 7,537]

You could just make more elaborate extension the rules in an attempt to cover all the possibilities (I could attempt to write such a thing), and create a clause at the end saying, "Any images that do not technically violate this criteria but still is overly suggestive will be subject to peer review and will be judged accordingly."  

 

Or something of that nature.  

 

However, I understand the con of there being a bit more work and effort behind that. Perhaps if we are extensive enough with the clarification of the rules, that clause might not be necessary.  

 

There really are only a finite number of possibilities.

 

I agree with this. In fact, something like this is what I had in mind when I made my earlier post. We could add more clarification while still maintaining the necessary catch-all nature of the rule. 

 

Work and effort is a non-issue. If something needs to be done to benefit the community, it will be done. And I assure you that I will gladly do it all myself if no one else will, but a willingness among the staff to do what needs to be done should not be an issue.

 

 

I've done that before and let me tell you it doesn't work. I asked a mod and he was okay with the picture so then I posted it and another mod dropped in and removed it. At that point I didn't even feel like appealing for it so I just rolled over and gave up. I mean I could have told them that another mod okayed it but seriously it is just a hassle.

 

This is definitely a problem. The staff fucks up sometimes, because we're imperfect humans like everyone else.

 

However, there was likely a group discussion behind that removal. There often is. There is always a group discussion behind anything more serious, such as a warning or a suspension. If this is the case, it is possible that that other moderator's opinion was overruled.

 

Regardless, we can't improve if people aren't willing to let us know when stuff like this happens.

[ghostfacekiller39 23,860]

~snip~

I get what you're saying, but the inconsistency in punishment in too glaring for action not to be taken and this remain a fairly run community. Like, the Rarity Fan Club/Dog awareness scenario presented in the OP. How is that even fair?

 

This same user also brough to my attention a glaring inconsistency in two disciplinary decisions. One being a 2 day suspension of a user who posted Nazi Rarity pictures in the March Madness Tournament thread and gory images of Rarity in the Rarity fanclub thread. While another user was given a 7 day suspension and nearly banned for posting graphic content of a man shooting a dog in order to raise awareness of an incident of animal cruelty. While the judgment of the user who was nearly banned was arguably bad and the content he posted was innapropriate it begs the question as to why who was miguided but had the best intentions got a 7 day suspension for graphic content yet someone who openly flamed and trolled only got a 2 day suspension.

I mean, just looking at the way this was handled makes my stomach turn. I just cannot fathom how someone who has a past history of abuse to an entire group of people can get off so lightly after posting the image he did in the safe haven of the people whom he had a history of harassing. Not only was it gory and disgusting, but it was an image of Rarity's bloody and rotting corpse posted in her fan club, which, naturally, is mostly inhabited by her fans. The same user who did that also tried driving the Rarity fans out of the March Madness Tourney by insulting them and posting pictures of her dressed up like a Nazi. I don't know about you, but stuff like that is also clearly NSFW - do you think your boss would be too happy if he were to come up behind you on your computer and see you looking at Nazi-related images? I don't think he would. 

 

So, harassing us by posting images clearly meant to hurt? Check.

 

Past history of harassing that section of the userbase? Check.

 

Borderline NSFW image? Check.

 

Past history of Borderline NSFW imagery? Check.

 

All of that leads up to a 2 day suspension? Bullshit. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but this is something that has deeply affected me since it happened, and most of the reason it's been so problematic for me is because of the way it was handled. The entire Rarity Fan Club got screwed by the staff, dammit, and I can't just let that go. That was wrong, and there isn't an excuse.

 

But, of course...someone posts one video of a dog getting shot - and I know for a fact who this member is and I personally have seen his warning history - but has no history of abusive behavior, no history of NSFW content, and his intent wasn't even malicious as much as it was to spread awareness, and that gets him 7 days?!

 

Please, tell me how in the world does that make any sense? I can't do it. I can't figure out what led to that. That inconsistency is just brutal and frankly it's infuriating and frightening to me as a member - much scarier than a long list of rules and guidelines.

 

Best solution to handle it? Well, why not make it a kind of report that must be discussed by several staff members. I was told by an administrator after a long, long discussion of this matter that the report in the Rarity fan club wasn't discussed. So, why just not make it to where it has to be discussed? Get a view from numerous angles and perspectives, and then make a judgement call as a collective. Quite frankly, though, the way the NSFW content rule is brutally unfair and just plain bullshit, and it has affected numerous members of this community, whether they have gotten in trouble for it or not.

[SCS 7,537]

-snip-

I agree that the inconsistency is a problem. I was pointing out an issue in my other post regarding stuff slipping through the cracks that wouldn't apply here since you say there was a report about this.

 

I don't think I was aware of the Rarity images situation at all, but I do remember the Nazi shit. There's a lot of situations that go on all the time so each moderator is not going to be aware of or participate in every single one.

 

Personally, I agree with you that a 2-day suspension for something like that was not fair at all. I would have gotten behind a 7-day suspension for something like that, myself. And I have no idea how a report for something like this wasn't discussed, assuming what you're saying is accurate and you didn't misunderstand what was said. 

 

That being said, I can assure you that the staff is not on a mission to screw you or anyone. I understand why something like this would hit you so hard, but stuff like this happens sometimes as a result of imperfection, not malice. The staff cannot and will not be perfect. 

 

Still, improvement can always occur, and one way in which it can is to make the borderline NSFW rule more clear and precise to some degree.

[Castle Bleck 19,348]

I get what you're saying, but the inconsistency in punishment in too glaring for action not to be taken and this remain a fairly run community. Like, the Rarity Fan Club/Dog awareness scenario presented in the OP. How is that even fair?

 

I mean, just looking at the way this was handled makes my stomach turn. I just cannot fathom how someone who has a past history of abuse to an entire group of people can get off so lightly after posting the image he did in the safe haven of the people whom he had a history of harassing. Not only was it gory and disgusting, but it was an image of Rarity's bloody and rotting corpse posted in her fan club, which, naturally, is mostly inhabited by her fans. The same user who did that also tried driving the Rarity fans out of the March Madness Tourney by insulting them and posting pictures of her dressed up like a Nazi. I don't know about you, but stuff like that is also clearly NSFW - do you think your boss would be too happy if he were to come up behind you on your computer and see you looking at Nazi-related images? I don't think he would. 

 

So, harassing us by posting images clearly meant to hurt? Check.

 

Past history of harassing that section of the userbase? Check.

 

Borderline NSFW image? Check.

 

Past history of Borderline NSFW imagery? Check.

 

All of that leads up to a 2 day suspension? Bullshit. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but this is something that has deeply affected me since it happened, and most of the reason it's been so problematic for me is because of the way it was handled. The entire Rarity Fan Club got screwed by the staff, dammit, and I can't just let that go. That was wrong, and there isn't an excuse.

 

But, of course...someone posts one video of a dog getting shot - and I know for a fact who this member is and I personally have seen his warning history - but has no history of abusive behavior, no history of NSFW content, and his intent wasn't even malicious as much as it was to spread awareness, and that gets him 7 days?!

 

Please, tell me how in the world does that make any sense? I can't do it. I can't figure out what led to that. That inconsistency is just brutal and frankly it's infuriating and frightening to me as a member - much scarier than a long list of rules and guidelines.

 

Best solution to handle it? Well, why not make it a kind of report that must be discussed by several staff members. I was told by an administrator after a long, long discussion of this matter that the report in the Rarity fan club wasn't discussed. So, why just not make it to where it has to be discussed? Get a view from numerous angles and perspectives, and then make a judgement call as a collective. Quite frankly, though, the way the NSFW content rule is brutally unfair and just plain bullshit, and it has affected numerous members of this community, whether they have gotten in trouble for it or not.

 

To quote wrestling ranter GreenPsycho17: "It's f***ing bulls***, man, it's f***ing bulls***."

 

[Jeric 46,851]

Best solution to handle it? Well, why not make it a kind of report that must be discussed by several staff members. I was told by an administrator after a long, long discussion of this matter that the report in the Rarity fan club wasn't discussed. So, why just not make it to where it has to be discussed? Get a view from numerous angles and perspectives, and then make a judgement call as a collective. Quite frankly, though, the way the NSFW content rule is brutally unfair and just plain bullshit, and it has affected numerous members of this community, whether they have gotten in trouble for it or not.

 

Since I was wasn't around during that incident it would be unfair to comment too much on it, but I completely agree that having an escalation process requiring deliberation and vote on both punishment and length might be the remedy.  Also what would happen to the offending party prior to decision? I would imagine that an appropriate compromise would be a temporary ban (not long) while deliberation occurs and the person would be notified post decision. That way you have more Admins and Mods weighing in and a fair decision could be made that would put the community first, while still ensuring better consistency. The logistics would be tricky to work out due to the time zone spread of the staff.

 

Good idea GFK

 

Edited for clarification

Edited July 16, 2014 by Jeric

[Dattebayo 2,850]

I fully back a more clear BNSFW guideline.

I'm currently disputing a moderation over a a gif of Pinkie Pie shaking her butt.

Problem was, that it was an edited version of when Fluttershy was checking if she sat on Applejack in Bridle Gossip.

Edited as in, to look like Pinkie Pie.

 

No genitals. No nudity. Just show-quality pony butt.

 

I received the same punishment as if I would've posted pictures of skimpy-clad women making out. Ain't that some sh*t.

 

I'm orgasmically close to not trusting the forum in the hands of the people that protect it. The inconsistency of the punishments and punishable offences are too varied. Reporting doesn't work as well as mods would hope, as it only encourages backseat-moderation and for the oversensitive to flag posts they don't like. Some sap might even flag me for saying "orgasmically".

 

I'm right, aren't I, mods?

 

So please. At least CONSIDER sitting down and hammering out a clearer BNSFW guideline, so the "justice system" (dunno what else to call it) doesn't have to rely on each person's tastes and sensitivities (whether during the reporting process or the actual moderation process).

As it is now, I'm hesitant to even post here anymore.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Dattebayo

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

~snip~

Because despite intent, the images posted of a dog being shot are more graphic in nature than someone posting images of a cartoon character in nazi uniforms. Thus the longer suspention. When it comes to things like that, intent is pointless. The content related to the dog getting shot was more graphic in nature, thus the longer ban. The issue that many people are bringing up, is that while his intent may be good he received a longer suspension. But intent is 100% negatable if what he posted was more graphic in nature than a cartoon character in a historical uniform, or hand drawn images of a cartoon character as a zombie.

 

And another issue is trying to judge intent. Who is to say that one cannot just lie that they had a clearer more positive intent, and yet still post war videos from ISIS? Sure, he can say that he is doing it to raise awareness, but since this is the internet, intent can never really be taken at face value.

 

 

tl;dr A video of a real life dog getting shot is more graphic in nature than images of your favorite cartoon character in a historical uniform. Thus the longer suspention. None of the staff here have come forward with the official peace officer training needed to judge intent on a basis like you are suggesting, so the path of least resistance is to not do it at all.

[Acoustic Cloud 2,202]

I've had seen problem and many things get removed.
Then I change my avatar and might I add the last one was Luna in the skimpiest outfit I could find.

And nobody bothered me for it (More or less complimented me for it), but I've seen people banned for the near same thing for pretty much no reason beyond mine.

 

I say we implement a rule of thumb 

(Yes I'm aware that what the rule was originally used for)

 

But in a not related fashion, as long as naughty bits are covered and there aren't any like, fluids or something else that may be used in a sexual manner, I don't think it should be a problem.

 

 

*All things I'm writing are in no relation to what I've experienced, I am merely stating possibilities, and just hope to not see this happen personally.

 

 

*Discipline is varying by which mod sees it.

And there should be a set guide that mods get that states what is or isn't in the boundaries.  (I dunno if that already is a thing.

 

A mod shouldn't be able to "Take the law into their own hands" That is corrupt, if something falls within a guideline, nobody should be able to suddenly make that call that it isn't okay.

 

But if it's really just because a mod or someone feels offended, that is a bit over the line for me.  Being offended is a part of life, and it's going to happen.  I don't want to see warning just because a mod doesn't like it.

I'm not saying that just letting people go willy nilly is a thing, but the internet is a free place.

And people should be able to show something sexy, just not, in an overly sexual manner.

But just because someone has a picture with bewbs on it, and a small bikini or whatever, doesn't make it all of a sudden, 100% inappropriate.

And yes, I'm aware this is a forum to accommodate children.

But things can only be easy for everyone to a point.

 

"Once one thing isn't okay, nothing is okay"

And the more restrictions placed may, in fact, lead to a downfall of this forum.

 

I just wish to see a clear NSFW rule, the one here is more vague than any rule I've ever seen.

We need less ambiguity, and more clarity.

Once that happens, I don't care what you do to people who cross that line.
But it's hard to know where to step if you can't see the line.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Acoustic Cloud

[ghostfacekiller39 23,860]

~snip~

You left out some key details, such as the fact you posted the Nazi Rarity images with malicious intent and you left out the entirety of what you did in the Rarity Fan Club.

 

Yeahh, if you're going to side-step your own misdeeds to suit your own argument (which is a defense of yourself, btw) then I really can't say that your opinion matters much here. You left out so many things that there's no possible way you overlooked them.

 

Just thought I'd point that out, so later.

[Simon 4,557]

I can't say I'm as familiar with the circumstances around the various incidents people are discussing here such as whatever happened in the Rarity fan club, but I did want to offer a suggestion from my past forum experience that may help to deal with some of the concerns I'm hearing.

 

From what I can see, I'm hearing two major problems that people have.  The first is that the rule is being inconsistently applied, and the second is that the punishments are inconsistent.

 

The reason these types of things happen is because of the huge number of moderators and administrators on this forum.  An analogy can actually be drawn to the criminal court system in the U.S.  One of the common complaints in the U.S. court system is that punishments are arbitrarily decided because different judges have different ways of applying the law.  In order to remedy this, two common solutions are proposed... the first is to take the discretion of the judge's hands and the second is to reduce the amount of people who make that decision.

 

Let me explain how either solution would work here.  Right now, if I understand correctly, any of the couple dozen administrators or moderators could end up being the person who decides what the punishment for borderline nsfw content (or any rule violation for that matter) will be.  There are guidelines but really it's discretionary.  The first solution is to remove the discretion from those people's hands.  This is what my old forum did.

The way we handled rule violations is that we had a chart with every punishment based on the number of times you had violated that particular rule.  Nothing else was taken into consideration, the moderators just plugged your violation into a chart, and it came out with the punishment.  For example, on that forum, harassing a member resulted in a 7 day block the first time you did it, 14 day block the second time, 1 month block the third, and a permanent ban the fourth.  The problem with this system is it doesn't allow for mercy... innocent mistakes happen, and a lot of the time we were forced to punish people pretty harshly who just made a mistake, because once you don't enforce the rules according to that system it becomes discretionary again and all the same issues reoccur.

The other solution is to have the same person decide punishment.  The way this would work in practice is the moderators would watch for NSFW content, and when they see something they believe falls into that category they temporarily hide the thread, and then send the details of what happened to a moderator or admin who is assigned to decide all the matters of punishment for NSFW content on the forum.  Then that designated moderator will decide whether the post should remain hidden or not, and will decide what punishment, if any, the member should receive.  The idea behind this is that if one person is making all the decisions on whether something is NSFW or not, then there will generally be consistency in how the rule is applied.  

 

Both systems have their drawbacks... having a non-discretionary system doesn't allow any sort of mercy or consideration for individual circumstances, and the second puts a lot of power into an individual staff member's hands, but I did want to propose both of them as they would help with the concerns being identified by most of the members on this thread.

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

You left out some key details, such as the fact you posted the Nazi Rarity images with malicious intent and you left out the entirety of what you did in the Rarity Fan Club.

 

Yeahh, if you're going to side-step your own misdeeds to suit your own argument (which is a defense of yourself, btw) then I really can't say that your opinion matters much here. You left out so many things that there's no possible way you overlooked them.

 

Just thought I'd point that out, so later.

I posted what I did in the  rarity fan club. I posted a single image of her as a zombie.

if your entire arguement is going to just resort to a character attack, then I'm done here. You have no argument, your opinion is more invalid than mine as all you want is some form of gratification. You don't care about the forums, and you left out a ton.

 

Good day sir, maybe once you grow up you can debate like an adult, untill then. Later.