PDA

View Full Version : Ratings are fine the way they are



SFtheWolf
10-19-2012, 09:54 AM
The "safe for work" version of FA is a joke, and a perfect example of how far people will push the rules they're given. Take a look at what counts as "safe" under their system: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2913228/

People's standards have been skewed because they've lost perspective. A) because they're used to FA where the ratings are nearly meaningless, and B) because they forget that people see human figures extremely differently from furry art. Lingerie modelling in a department store catalogue is seen as tame by most, but if you put a humanoid catgirl in the same position, it will immediately draw attention to the most sexual aspects of it because people aren't used to seeing them in that context. We as a community are in a delicate position that could easily draw the public's attention in a much more negative way than we have so far, and we should continue to tread lightly if we don't want to all become some conservative politician's next pet project for a morality crusade.

Let's not forget either just how many arguments against age gating are made in completely bad faith. There's an ongoing fad lately of artists wanting to have their cake and eat it too, by drawing obviously sexual art, but splitting enough hairs on the technical details that they can downgrade it to something they consider "clean". They do this so that they can continue their moral outrage at artists who create works which are "dirty" or not "artistic", while profiting off the same subject matter themselves.

I urge the site administrators to distinguish between arguments based on rationale and arguments based on emotion, and hope they continue to do the excellent job they have so far.

Amber-Aria
10-19-2012, 01:23 PM
I agree entirely. I can understand that there has been some debate regarding things such as wanting to discern the "artistic nude" from "pornography", but in all honesty? Even if it is labelled as "adult" instead of "mature", those who do get to see the work will be able to tell the difference themselves. The ratings were not put there to be a personal offense to anyone who might draw something that ends up being labelled as "adult", but because the moderation for Weasyl felt that it was the best way to go with labeling content, for the site's sake and for the range of users who would use it. Yes, I may not personally take offense to the nude form anymore because of my experience of drawing it for art classes and the like, but there are certainly others outside of the community who would see this content differently. We need to look at the issue of ratings objectively, and as those outside the website considering entry may.

Fay V pointed out something in another thread on this that I very much agree with, and actually hadn't realized:


On FA there is General (all ages) and Mature & Adult which require you to be 18
On Weasyl we have General (all ages) Mature/Moderate (13+) and Adult (18+). We literally can not mirror FA and allow everything that they put into mature in our mature category because it requires two different age groups.

Again, many sites require you to be 18 in order to view mature work, which is why the distinction is different.
Furaffinity, as shown above.
Inkbunny, You must agree you are 18 or older to view mature content
Deviantart, which does not allow porn, you must agree to be 18 or older to view mature content.

Perhaps a big issue that people take with the ratings making any nude "adult" is because it limits the exposure of the art. However, I personally feel that I would much rather have my more mature art limited to those who are of the required age, than lower the standards of the content ratings for the sake of more exposure.

Meii
10-19-2012, 03:00 PM
Pretty sure majority are agreeing with you guys, but just curious SF, why did you make another thread for this? :O

Here's the original discussion thread

http://forums.weasyl.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?1017-Ratings

Not trying to be mean but I'm sure it'd just be easier to have this discussion all done in one thread ^^;

Kajoken
10-20-2012, 06:17 AM
The "safe for work" version of FA is a joke, and a perfect example of how far people will push the rules they're given. Take a look at what counts as "safe" under their system: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2913228/

People's standards have been skewed because they've lost perspective. A) because they're used to FA where the ratings are nearly meaningless, and B) because they forget that people see human figures extremely differently from furry art. Lingerie modelling in a department store catalogue is seen as tame by most, but if you put a humanoid catgirl in the same position, it will immediately draw attention to the most sexual aspects of it because people aren't used to seeing them in that context. We as a community are in a delicate position that could easily draw the public's attention in a much more negative way than we have so far, and we should continue to tread lightly if we don't want to all become some conservative politician's next pet project for a morality crusade.

Great, now it comes down to different views on "normal" art and furry art. Are you even a furry at all? It's on difference, if a human wears a bikini/lingerie or if an anthro character wears one. It's still the exact same rating. This is a furry orientated website so of course people are used to see this stuff. If you want to look at "normal" art, go to deviantart. Let me guess, American right? Wouldn't surprise me, since they are known for their double standards everywhere. Having the biggest porn industry in the world but oh my gosh, a nipple, my eyes bleed ...


Let's not forget either just how many arguments against age gating are made in completely bad faith. There's an ongoing fad lately of artists wanting to have their cake and eat it too, by drawing obviously sexual art, but splitting enough hairs on the technical details that they can downgrade it to something they consider "clean". They do this so that they can continue their moral outrage at artists who create works which are "dirty" or not "artistic", while profiting off the same subject matter themselves.

If you say it like that, this means, every pinup, be it "normal" art or anthro art is porn. This is kind of sad, considering you seem to be an artist yourself.

Temrin
10-20-2012, 01:53 PM
@Kajoken

This is -not- a furry oriented site. The majority of people using it right now are furries or people interested in the anthro aspect of things, yes. But this is not a furry site anymore. Its for -everyone-.

Also, your jabs at SF are not appreciated. And jabs like that are in fact against the rules and can be considered abuse/harassment. Please check the rules and be familiar with them: http://forums.weasyl.com/vbulletin/announcement.php?f=13&tabid=46

I do agree with you Kajo, though, on the fact that "if a furry and a human were to wear a bikini it would be the same rating." It -is- the human form weather it be covered in fur/scales/whatever. People will need to understand this and deal with it.

I do however understand what they are also trying to say with the second part you replied too. Some people will draw obviously sexual art but keep out certain details so the can claim it as clean even though its been drawn for sexual purposes. Things drawn for a sexual purpose -is- considered porn. Though as well, keep this in mind, someone acting sexy, but completely clothed can still be arousing and be used as porn by some. So the rating on this site i think are to keep things that are legitimately innocent and clean, viewable to guests to the site, where as when you are logged in you can view the other context of things. Honestly, i feel its a good thing to keep the ratings as they are because it blocks guests from seeing things they shouldn't. FA shows nudes to guests as well and a lot of people use that as a "holy crap its a porn site!" To keep this site in a more general sense its nice to be a guest and know that they are protecting users who haven't agreed to the ToS of this site, don't get -things that could be considered porn or simply inappropriate- in their faces.

Thats my two sense anyways.

Roki
10-21-2012, 11:27 AM
Maybe slightly off topic, but copy/pasting from a conversation I had with Temrin: I do almost feel like there needs to be an in-between rating though, like "parental advisory" between general and mature to cover stuff like mild depictions of blood, language, butts, and all that not-quite-mature jazz. Like this> https://www.weasyl.com/submission/10761 <is by necessity mature, but only because there are a couple blood stains.

Kajoken
10-22-2012, 05:16 AM
While going through the last uploads it seems to me that several others have a different rating system in mind as well.
I find dozens of images that are rated mature but should be rated "adult" (I mean porn *cough*) under those "rules" here.
Have fun changing all those submissions. It's probably several hundred already.

Skoll
11-22-2012, 08:43 AM
I've seen some that should be rated General and are rated Mature. For no reason at all.

There is a bit of difference in perspective for each one of us. For an example, I've received art classes (just history and theory), of course we explored nude art, and learn about it, and having sexual education since the 5th grade through even 11th year, nude art turned out to be very natural. Not to forget we may have nudist in the community in which some or most can consider taboo for them is just as natural as water. Perhaps the rating guidelines need to specify, more clearly, their standards. It is just right now in the middle for us to decide.

Wuvvums
11-22-2012, 02:00 PM
I guess I would base it off of what would you show a 13-year-old versus an 18-year-old. Sure, you may be one of those more open-minded parents who don't care if their kids see artistically nude pieces, but we do know it's much more likely the parents of young members on this site would be much more concerned about it. The ratings are based on age, so mature says 13+ and I base my assumptions off of that.