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

[Creamy Arty 6,252]

Alright, a bit late to the party, but I do have something to add to this. Probably nothing that hasn't already been said (didn't read past the OP, lololol) but I think the nature of my position on this forum changes things up a bit. As most of you probably know, I was an administrator until very recently.

 

 

The Borderline NSFW warning has irked me for a long time now, to be honest. We have had, I'll admit, a glaring lack of consistency in the definition of this rule and methods of enforcement. Should have probably spoken up sooner about that. However, when somebody did file a dispute over receiving such a warning, I did do my best to render a fair verdict and overturned a few of them, so we're by no means apathetic or plugging our ears to any outcry arising over this issue.

 

As has been noted by EP, many times have moderators made what appeared to be very strange distinctions as to what qualifies as an infraction, sometimes appearing contradictory. I can assure you that there was never any nefarious motives or the like, but the "borderline" warning is ambiguous by nature. On the positive side, it keeps people from getting too heavy-handed a reprimand for an infraction while conversely causing some others to get reprimanded for something that was wholly undeserving of punitive action. The problem is that there is no solid definition for what constitutes "borderline," and it resists further elucidation despite sincere efforts by staff members to establish some guidelines. That said, if the staff can't even form a consensus and know exactly what they're doing in regards to this policy, how can they expect those not on staff to adhere to the rule? They can't.

 

My preference would be to annihilate this warning reason altogether. Prior to my resignation yesterday, we discussed this matter in an admin call on Skype, in which I voiced my support for abolishing this rule and being a little more flexible with the standard NSFW warning except in extreme, obvious cases such as pornography and gore.

 

 

Let me reiterate that the moderation and administration have been doing their best to be even-handed here, but this situation too easily lends itself to individual discretion and circular discussions among themselves. They're doing the best they can with what they have, so perhaps it's simply time to restructure the system a little bit to avoid further misunderstandings and make everyone's lives a little easier.

[Shanks 10,816]

Just the other night a topic on porn was locked and the reason given was the posts supposedly being "all over the place" but the OP clearly asked for pros and cons about porn and people did just that and I didn't see anyone say anything abusive or inappropriate in that thread so it being locked dosen't really make sense to me.

 

http://mlpforums.com/topic/107037-pornography-pros-and-cons/

 

I realize that the staff has been pre emptively locking certain topics, most of them being clop topics on the count of it sadly being the most volatile topic on here. Because of those pre emptive locks and the reason given frequently being "we no longer allow clop topics because they devolve in to flame wars and inappropriate content" I requested that this be officially written in the rules which has been done. As far as I understand though the rule regarding sexual topics in general with that exception is pretty much the same yet that porn topic was locked just as quickly as many of the clop topics have been despite the fact that again nothing abusive or inappropriate was posted. Which leaves me and probably many other members confused as to why that topic was locked because it didn't really seem like the thread got derailed either.

 

 

My preference would be to annihilate this warning reason altogether.

That is quite a radical suggestion, one I doubt the staff here will adopt but I didn't think the whole "don't call us we will call you approach" to getting new moderators would change either but it did. I guess what would need to figured is what would need to be done in situations where something is obviously inappropriate but not outright pornographic, like maybe something R rated. It seems like we still have to have some guideline for those cases as well even if the "borderline NSFW" warning is officially done away with.

Edited August 11, 2014 by EarthbendingProdigy

[Creamy Arty 6,252]

That is quite a radical suggestion, one I doubt the staff here will adopt but I didn't think the whole "don't call us we will call you approach" to getting new moderators would change either but it did.

The "don't call us we will call you approach" was a great way of doing things. Eventually the forum grew and changed to the point that it didn't work as well anymore, so a supplementary method was introduced to make up for its reduced efficacy. Similarly, other rules (such as this one) worked very well for a long time but may need to be reconsidered under our current circumstances. Don't hesitate to toss out suggestions whenever you have them.

[Luna 831 466]

I think they are just pictures and if they are not hurting anyone why cant you post it.

[Shanks 10,816]

Don't hesitate to toss out suggestions whenever you have them.

I guess I just had a hard time wrapping something like that around my head, I did have a thought thought about how that would work and it is that perhaps  the "excessive vulgarity" rule could be altered to cover some of that particular material. Currently users are allowed to use profanity so long as they don't get too excessive about it because certain users won't want to see F bombs everywhere, I know this will probably need a bit of further tweaking but perhaps there could be a similar policy about certain material that may now be considered "borderline NSFW". A lot of users don't want to see suggestive images and posts everywhere but the rules currently allow for some mild innuendo so long as it dosen't go too far, there would still be certain material that would still be considered as going a bit too far even in moderate doses even if they aren't outright pornographic but perhaps those can be covered by the "excessive vulgarity" rule.

Edited August 11, 2014 by EarthbendingProdigy

[Jeric 46,851]

 

 

A lot of users don't want to see suggestive images and posts everywhere but the rules currently allow for some mild innuendo so long as it dosen't go too far, there would still be certain material that would still be considered as going a bit too far even in moderate doses even if they aren't outright pornographic but perhaps those can be covered by the "excessive vulgarity" rule.

 

I wonder if using the tag system would allow for some more freedom. If the OP tags a thread with the word 'safe' then users that reply should be a little more aware of what they use in terms of images. If no tag is present, then more leeway may be allowable. Still allows for some self policing. A good example of the acceptable innuendo rule would be the Fan Clubs and some of the Forum Games. I don't know if that overly complicates things though since some might feel such a system would entitle them to make a duplicate topic which would fragment discussion (something I am against).

 

Hmm.

[King 5,625]

As has been announced, the "Borderline NSFW" rule no longer exists. The Moderation and Administration team are ever looking to refine our rules so that they work well for our ever changing community and we certainly appreciate members bringing up suggestions and concerns such as this one.

Thanks guys.