Why does NSFW carry a penalty so much higher than anything else?

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

If you look at the warning system, everything else only carries 100 points except abusive behavior, which is 250 points. Then we get to NSFW, and it shoots up to 800 points for a single infraction, which is 4/5 of the total needed to constitute a permanent ban.

Why is NSFW considered so much worse than everything else, especially considering how murky the rules governing it can sometimes be?

For example, the rule was recently amended to state that the difference between acceptable and unacceptable was the difference between a swimsuit and underwear. Even if both show the very same amount of skin, one will shove the user 4/5 of the way to a permaban while the other will be accepted without question.

 

EDIT: Now that I think about it, can a mod move this to feedback/suggestions? It started out as a site question, but sorta... changed as I was writing it.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Mand'alor Dash

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

Things if a graphic sexual nature are arguably  things that younger members should not be seeing.

It can confuse a younger user and they may see things that they're not ready for.

 

Just like how you cannot post sexual-themed photos om most sites, this one is no exception.

This site is no place for NSFW art. It is a friendly forums to be kept clean.

 

I understand that, but even then, it doesn't make sense to me how it's so much higher than anything else, especially since discussions of general sexuality and other adult topics are permitted.

[Jeric 46,860]

I'll move this in a moment. 

 

This is actually a simple answer, the site was conceived and is operated as a discussion board distinct from other MLP based forums. No NSFW as we cater to a younger audience. This may surprise you, but there are minors here, and have accounts with their parents. Hosting NSFW does open MLP Forums to potential legal entanglements. 

 

Because of these reasons, NSFW is considered more dangerous to our board, and can damage us for more that someone yelling at someone else, talking off topic, or even posting a piracy link. Porn on a site that opens itself up to 13 year olds ... bad. Same with Gore. The point amount was to give leeway in mistakes, and Moderators can adjust point value depending on the severity of the NSFW post. 

 

As long as we allow young teens here, NSFW will be treated as a serious violation. We have relaxed things and removed the Borderline NSFW stipulation, but this is one we need to likely keep a firm line on. 

 

Now I shall move this. 

Edited November 28, 2014 by Jeric
I said NSFW Six Times.

[Troblems 5,619]

Royal Blue Jay basically hit the nail on the head. If someone's mom walked in on them viewing the forums, the last thing we would want is an angry message about how their child was seeing something they didn't want a 13 year old to see. That's why we're so harsh on it: this site is supposed to be for people age 13 and up, and therefore anything that is meant for people 18+ carries such a harsh penalty. 
 
As for the recent rule change, I think people were basically exploiting the letter of the law over the intent. The part that was really meant to be seen wasn't:

 In other words, we allow sexy, but not saucy; suggestive, but not explicit; bloody, but not gory.

Here's an FAQ article, should you be interested.

[Jeric 46,860]

 

 

I understand that, but even then, it doesn't make sense to me how it's so much higher than anything else, especially since discussions of general sexuality and other adult topics are permitted.

 

 

Discussions are less legally actionable than visual depictions of inappropriate sexual or violent content. 

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

I'll move this in a moment. 

 

This is actually a simple answer, the site was conceived and is operated as a discussion board distinct from other MLP based forums. No NSFW as we cater to a younger audience. This may surprise you, but there are minors here, and have accounts with their parents. Hosting NSFW does open MLP Forums to potential legal entanglements. 

 

Because of these reasons, NSFW is considered more dangerous to our board, and can damage us for more that someone yelling at someone else, talking off topic, or even posting a piracy link. Porn on a site that opens itself up to 13 year olds ... bad. Same with Gore. The point amount was to give leeway in mistakes, and Moderators can adjust point value depending on the severity of the NSFW post. 

 

As long as we allow young teens here, NSFW will be treated as a serious violation. We have relaxed things and removed the Borderline NSFW stipulation, but this is one we need to likely keep a firm line on. 

 

Now I shall move this. 

 

So, say someone posted a picture of the Equestria Girls characters in their underwear. Would that net the full amount, or a reduced penalty?

[Jeric 46,860]

So, say someone posted a picture of the Equestria Girls characters in their underwear. Would that net the full amount, or a reduced penalty?

 

Unfortunately, it's hard to answer that question since you didn't qualify many of the other variables that go into a staff discussion on this subject. Is the picture's primary intent to cause arousal (not all underwear shots are identical you know)? Is this the first instance of NSFW? It could yield a lower point total, yes. It could not. 

 

When in doubt, PM your friendly neighborhood Moderator the pic you are unsure of.

 

We are approachable. 

[CheeryFox 23,822]

It makes sense that NSFW is that high in points. It would be better not to post anything risque to begin with. And let's say this was purely an adult site, there are still NSFW rules that apply. And please, PM your friendly neighborhood moderator because there is no need to risk it. 

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,303]

For example, the rule was recently amended to state that the difference between acceptable and unacceptable was the difference between a swimsuit and underwear. Even if both show the very same amount of skin, one will shove the user 4/5 of the way to a permaban while the other will be accepted without question.

^ This.  I don't care what the motivation was.  I don't care what the thinking was.  The whole SFW vs. NSFW distinction between swimsuits and underwear is - and this seems the most fitting word at the moment - silly.  It's a silly, silly thing.  Particularly when you stop and consider the fact that ponies don't normally wear any clothing at all.  Therefore, naked ponies (established and acknowledged in canon) are treated, in this instance, as preferable and comparatively more acceptable than clothed ponies.  Silly.

 

"Oh, but dressing them in underwear sexualizes the ponies whereas putting them in skimpy swimsuits doesn't!"  Wrong, person whose quote I just invented.  But someone was totally thinking it when they read my post...  In the near future.  If you seriously need me to explain why anyone who subscribes to this way of thinking is wrong, consider two things: 1. Many many people, regardless of age, wear underwear.  Does the underwear automatically sexualize the wearer?  No.  Your eyes sexualize the wearer, and this is possible regardless of what someone is wearing.  2. Does a skimpy bikini generally make a man or woman (that the viewer considers attractive) LESS sexy?  Does it?  There are cases where dental floss would provide similar coverage.  Do women nowadays wear conservative swimsuits?  To purposely hide the sensitive portions of their bodies that would surely inspire irremovable shame were they publicly exposed?

 

Also, if you're a thirteen year old with access to a computer and the internet, you're gonna see things.  Things you may or may not be prepared to see.  This is the reality of THE INTERNET.  Shielding children - that probably ought not be permitted internet access from the get-go - from the likes of pretty ponies parading proudly in panties is like denying a child a cookie while they're guzzling a 2 liter of soda.  Silly.  There's that word again.

[sweetolebob18 728]

Okay, I can see their point.  The rest of the stuff is bad manners & annoying but posting porno could get them in trouble with the law Big Time, cost them fines or even get the site shut down.  Is it really that hard to understand why they want to do everything they can to discourage it?

 

On the other hand, some of the most famous artwork in history is nudes.  I remember an episode of Little House On The Prairie where they had a hoohaw over a painting called "Rape of the Sabine Women" & one of the most famous anti war posters ever made had a nude girl running up a road -on fire. (Read an article on her, once.  She lived & made a more or less full recovery.)  I also remember an Australian ad (?) something to the effect of "when does a guy's thong swim suit turn into underwear?"  (Their conclusion? When you can't see the water anymore or 500 yds)

 

Maybe some sort of way to ask a moderator "Hey, is this OK?" before it is posted?  I'm a total techno illiterate & have no clue how much trouble that would be

[Jeric 46,860]

Maybe some sort of way to ask a moderator "Hey, is this OK?" before it is posted? I'm a total techno illiterate & have no clue how much trouble that would be

Our PM box is always open

[Virgil 685]

I think it is very accommodating to many users, that the Mods are even willing to discuss via PM whether a pic might be NSFW. I can very much imagine most sites just saying, "if you have to ask, then don't post period." As that I'm sure would make things easier for the Administration of any site.