PDA

View Full Version : Community Guidelines and Ratings Guide Adjustments



Matt
06-16-2014, 02:29 PM
40

Hi again, Weasyl users!

We're back, and this time we have big news! We're here to announce the changes and alterations we've made to the Community Guidelines and Ratings Guide. We've gotten a lot of public and private feedback about our policies, so we've taken the time to address items which were in need of clarification as well as smooth out any rough patches in our rules.

There are a few rule adaptations which we feel merit specific attention: First, we've added a new item to the literature section of the community guidelines so that in-depth reviews now qualify as literary submissions. We've also clarified our journal policies as they relate to things like harassment. Please be aware call-outs, insulting content, defamatory posts, etc. are not permissible in journals or any type of Weasyl submission regardless of the subject being a Weasyl user or not.

Finally, we have made the distinction between Mature and Explicit rating more clear in that it is now clearly stated that sexual arousal shown within a submission qualifies as sexual content and therefore requires an Explicit rating. This is also a reminder that neither rating category is meant to be viewed as superior to the other; both require users to be 18+ to view but the Mature category was created in response to user feedback to make it easier to browse content not appropriate for minors but not necessarily sexual in nature.

All of these changes, as well as all additional changes, can be viewed in the following links: Ratings Guidelines Adjusted (https://www.weasyl.com/help/ratings/changes) and Community Guidelines Adjusted (https://www.weasyl.com/policy/community/changes). We have highlighted the documents to identify the areas where the language has been clarified, a rule has been added, or an item has been adjusted, for easy review.

It is essential that each user fully reads and understands the changes and clarifications which have occurred and adjust their galleries accordingly. While submissions submitted before these updates will be reviewed with the date of submission in mind, it is primarily the responsibility of the individual user to ensure their gallery is in line with site policy.

If there are any questions or comments about these changes or current policies please let us know. We highly encourage user feedback and would be interested to hear if any items remain unclear or if there are items you do not feel are covered under the current rules. We can be contacted privately at Support@weasyl.com or on our forums

Thanks for taking the time to check in with us. Our next new post will be the first post in our Weasyl Spotlight series, so we hope you're as excited for that as we are. For more updates please follow us on Twitter at @Weasyl (https://twitter.com/weasyl) and @WeasylDev (https://twitter.com/weasyldev) or our tumblr (http://blog.weasyl.com/). You can also help take part in discussion about this post and anything else on our forums (forums.weasyl.com).

Thanks again, everyone!

Art by Masked-Lion (https://www.weasyl.com/~maskedlion)

RedSavage
06-16-2014, 03:09 PM
The whole highlighting bit of all the new features is actually really intuitive. Nice touch. This is a very straight forward and aware set of guidelines that's really on par with the community, I think.

Mazz
06-16-2014, 03:13 PM
So "barbie doll nudity" on reference sheets such as seen here: https://www.weasyl.com/submission/630987/johanna-otter-ref

General or moderate? Currently I classify them under general but if they must be under moderate I understand, it just makes it harder to link clean refs like these off site to non-users.

Atarashi
06-16-2014, 03:42 PM
Since the Moderate rating only clearly defines female anatomy, I was wondering just for clarification's sake - I'm assuming this also means no sheaths either? As in, not even remotely sexual the character is just an anthro male vs. a "ken doll" male. I think that needs to be added, only having female nipples down kinda leaves that open. Or if it differs between anthro characters having a sheath or anatomically correct feral art (not pornographic just realistic). Again, /I/ assume sheaths on anthro probably fall into not allowed on moderate but a piece meant to represent someone's male feral dog playing fetch would be alright? I just think that one bit needs to be more clear in the rules. Otherwise it all seems pretty straight forward.

Edit: Those above me brought up a good point with the "Barbie" look too on breasts.

RedSavage
06-16-2014, 03:55 PM
Since the Moderate rating only clearly defines female anatomy, I was wondering just for clarification's sake - I'm assuming this also means no sheaths either? As in, not even remotely sexual the character is just an anthro male vs. a "ken doll" male. I think that needs to be added, only having female nipples down kinda leaves that open. Or if it differs between anthro characters having a sheath or anatomically correct feral art (not pornographic just realistic). Again, /I/ assume sheaths on anthro probably fall into not allowed on moderate but a piece meant to represent someone's male feral dog playing fetch would be alright? I just think that one bit needs to be more clear in the rules. Otherwise it all seems pretty straight forward.
Edit: Those above me brought up a good point with the "Barbie" look too on breasts.

Technically a normal doggy running around isn't "naked" in the broadest sense, so sheath and such doesn't apply as nudity.
But an ANTHRO-doggy, well, there's a very real sense of "oh hey that character is naked". So I'd consider that mature.
This is the only distinction I can think to bring up in this scenario.

KajTaotsu
06-16-2014, 04:03 PM
The account guidlines are probably going to rile up a lot of artists that ran here to save their name and then leave their accounts to rot with nothing on them, lol. I understand the reasons behind the choices made for it though, since even though those artists have good intent with doing that, they are technically hoarding their own name.

- - - Updated - - -

@Mazz: Submissions under the "Moderate" rating are still viewable for people without accounts I believe since it's just a 13+ rating. Mature and Explicit are user-viewed only.

LawyerDog
06-16-2014, 04:38 PM
"NOTE: Any depictions of bodily waste must be rated as Explicit." continues to be very silly. Under this rule any submission that shows someone sweating has to be rated Explicit.

Socks the Fox
06-16-2014, 04:44 PM
RE: Releasing claimed usernames

You KNOW someone's going to abuse that. The whole reason 75% of people that create empty accounts do it is to prevent impersonation on sites they otherwise don't use. They try to head that off by registering their name, and then this yanks that out from under them and gives it right to the trolls that will gladly take advantage of it.

Nix
06-16-2014, 05:07 PM
I'd like to know the answer to the "barbie-doll nudity" question as well, because it means I'd have to change a LOT of my gallery from General to Moderate. I always figured it would go in General because, I mean....Barbie dolls....

Gamedog
06-16-2014, 05:14 PM
I've got an account that was made for NSFW material because I did not want it to be associated with my main art gallery. I don't draw NSFW material often, and I fear that this would put my account in jeopardy of being closed down. Is there a way I can keep my account from being put up for public grabs aside from drawing more art to put on the account? For example, could I create a journal stating that the account is not abandoned or inactive, but that I just don't post as often as I'd like to because I'm mostly a SFW artist?

Thanks!

SpartaDog
06-16-2014, 05:54 PM
I'm kind of really unhappy with the specification of "female" nipples being considered sexual but "male" nipples not. If you really have to classify nipples as sexual (coughtheyrenotcough), at least make it gender-neutral. It's pretty sexist to insist that the same body part is sexual on one gender but not another.

On that note, also not happy about singling out transgender and non-binary users. That whole paragraph just sounded like "Yeah we know you don't like it when we do this, but too bad, we're gonna do it anyway". On that note, since when do we have to use the US guidelines on the internet? Last I checked, the internet wasn't American. The site's users aren't exclusively American. And the US is probably one of the worst countries to model your ToS on, especially if you want to not alienate a large percentage of your userbase.

Just saying, I am very disappointed with these changes. I know a few people are considering leaving Weasyl because they think it's going to turn as offensive and sickening as FurAffinity. I don't think that's going to happen, but this is definitely a step in the wrong direction.

batbot
06-16-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: Releasing claimed usernames

You KNOW someone's going to abuse that. The whole reason 75% of people that create empty accounts do it is to prevent impersonation on sites they otherwise don't use. They try to head that off by registering their name, and then this yanks that out from under them and gives it right to the trolls that will gladly take advantage of it.

"Sites they don't otherwise use" being the key phrase, Weasyl should not be held to some non-existent agreement that someone's online identity will be intact across all sites. I know that it can be annoying - personal experience with my real life name in a professional setting, actually, so kind of worst than "oh no someone else is using the handle fluffybunny13 people will think that's me!"....buuut, if you want to "hold your name", you should prove that you use the site in question...by actually using the site in question and not just squatting. On the note of "squatting", it's totally possible for trolls to squat, too, and prevent users from taking the names they want, by simply registering the name and not using it (no impersonation or trolling necessary)

Impersonation is already bannable so I don't see it as a big deal; trolls will get caught and banned. Dead user accounts will not collect "the good names". Users will (admittedly, coercively) encouraged to use their flipping accounts instead of saving it for a "rainy day".




I've got an account that was made for NSFW material because I did not want it to be associated with my main art gallery. I don't draw NSFW material often, and I fear that this would put my account in jeopardy of being closed down. Is there a way I can keep my account from being put up for public grabs aside from drawing more art to put on the account? For example, could I create a journal stating that the account is not abandoned or inactive, but that I just don't post as often as I'd like to because I'm mostly a SFW artist?

Thanks!
I'm not a mod, but it would seem that, if you upload, comment, create journal entries, or even fave stuff between the day you create the account and three months on, and are seen as still using the account in an active manner (not just logging on every 2 weeks; but uploading some new content) at say, the third and fourth month since account creation, you're safe. Citing the actual phrasing: "If an account has been created but has not been logged into or has not shown any activity since the day of registration, it will be released after three months."



Now for me I guess I have to go and up-rate some non-titillating dongs from M18+ to E18+, but it seems to be all in good order. Actually, I hadn't seen the community guideline page before! I don't know why, must have missed the link somewhere. So it was informative to see the older info, too.

Noxid
06-16-2014, 06:00 PM
I've got a question about what happens when we report content for inappropriate ratings. When it's handled by a moderator, does the user get notified about what the problem was if it gets changed? Because, I'm all for helping to flag things where people need a little guidance on the rules, but I feel like it'd be kind of a waste if they never find out why they should've put the rating as <whatever> for future.

Nix
06-16-2014, 06:04 PM
I've got a question about what happens when we report content for inappropriate ratings. When it's handled by a moderator, does the user get notified about what the problem was if it gets changed? Because, I'm all for helping to flag things where people need a little guidance on the rules, but I feel like it'd be kind of a waste if they never find out why they should've put the rating as <whatever> for future.

i've accidentally mis-rated images when uploading things too quickly, so i can say that you do get a note in your inbox saying what was changed and why. can't say i'm totally happy with every aspect of the rating guildlines, but it's definitely nice to know when something is changed and why, to not make the same mistake again

Rory
06-16-2014, 06:40 PM
So "barbie doll nudity" on reference sheets such as seen here: https://www.weasyl.com/submission/630987/johanna-otter-ref

General or moderate? Currently I classify them under general but if they must be under moderate I understand, it just makes it harder to link clean refs like these off site to non-users.

General. There's nothing curvaceous or well defined, like in XoPachi's down below.


^Yeah I'm confused on that myself. I've got this here (https://www.weasyl.com/~xp/submission/558255/xp-sally-acorn-1961851.jpg), would that be Mature or moderate?

Moderate. This one might require a little discretion, but that's how Sally is portrayed and it's not "nude" in the context of the Sonic universe, although her breasts are more well defined. Still no nipples.


Since the Moderate rating only clearly defines female anatomy, I was wondering just for clarification's sake - I'm assuming this also means no sheaths either? As in, not even remotely sexual the character is just an anthro male vs. a "ken doll" male. I think that needs to be added, only having female nipples down kinda leaves that open. Or if it differs between anthro characters having a sheath or anatomically correct feral art (not pornographic just realistic). Again, /I/ assume sheaths on anthro probably fall into not allowed on moderate but a piece meant to represent someone's male feral dog playing fetch would be alright? I just think that one bit needs to be more clear in the rules. Otherwise it all seems pretty straight forward.

Edit: Those above me brought up a good point with the "Barbie" look too on breasts.

Sheaths are considered "nudity" in art on Weasyl, regardless if they're on a feral or anthro. That's why this line was added: * Please note: ratings do not differentiate amongst different species or beings.


"NOTE: Any depictions of bodily waste must be rated as Explicit." continues to be very silly. Under this rule any submission that shows someone sweating has to be rated Explicit.

Sweat's fine. Unfortunately the rules will never be able to clearly cover every single situation or difference, no matter how many times we refine and/or expand them. Sweat does not fall under the same category as urine and feces, however. I know I want to say "this is common sense", but I can promise you we moderate with discretion and an understanding that what we have here for the guides are baselines to work with. Sometimes a situation falls outside the baseline and we examine it as fairly as possible.

Zalcoti
06-16-2014, 06:45 PM
On that note, also not happy about singling out transgender and non-binary users. That whole paragraph just sounded like "Yeah we know you don't like it when we do this, but too bad, we're gonna do it anyway". On that note, since when do we have to use the US guidelines on the internet? Last I checked, the internet wasn't American. The site's users aren't exclusively American. And the US is probably one of the worst countries to model your ToS on, especially if you want to not alienate a large percentage of your userbase.

If the company is based in the United States, they have to follow US law. Weasyl is not above the law in any country.

Rory
06-16-2014, 06:48 PM
I've got an account that was made for NSFW material because I did not want it to be associated with my main art gallery. I don't draw NSFW material often, and I fear that this would put my account in jeopardy of being closed down. Is there a way I can keep my account from being put up for public grabs aside from drawing more art to put on the account? For example, could I create a journal stating that the account is not abandoned or inactive, but that I just don't post as often as I'd like to because I'm mostly a SFW artist?

Thanks!

I'd have to double check specifics, but it's more of a "if you've never used your account once" thing than a low activity thing.


Last I checked, the internet wasn't American. The site's users aren't exclusively American. And the US is probably one of the worst countries to model your ToS on, especially if you want to not alienate a large percentage of your userbase.


No, but the servers we use are based in America. You're beholden to US laws.


I've got a question about what happens when we report content for inappropriate ratings. When it's handled by a moderator, does the user get notified about what the problem was if it gets changed? Because, I'm all for helping to flag things where people need a little guidance on the rules, but I feel like it'd be kind of a waste if they never find out why they should've put the rating as <whatever> for future.

Yep, the user gets notified of any changes we have made to their submissions and why they were made. We're pretty friendly about misrates, we know it's a new system for people to get used to.

Zalcoti
06-16-2014, 07:03 PM
Now to get Weasyl out of beta. Also, a view all option for the critique section.

Gamedog
06-16-2014, 07:08 PM
I'm kind of really unhappy with the specification of "female" nipples being considered sexual but "male" nipples not. If you really have to classify nipples as sexual (coughtheyrenotcough), at least make it gender-neutral. It's pretty sexist to insist that the same body part is sexual on one gender but not another.

On that note, also not happy about singling out transgender and non-binary users. That whole paragraph just sounded like "Yeah we know you don't like it when we do this, but too bad, we're gonna do it anyway". On that note, since when do we have to use the US guidelines on the internet? Last I checked, the internet wasn't American. The site's users aren't exclusively American. And the US is probably one of the worst countries to model your ToS on, especially if you want to not alienate a large percentage of your userbase.

Just saying, I am very disappointed with these changes. I know a few people are considering leaving Weasyl because they think it's going to turn as offensive and sickening as FurAffinity. I don't think that's going to happen, but this is definitely a step in the wrong direction.

While I agree with you on the basis of female nipples not being sexual, Weasyl does operate based on US law, and US law states that minors can't see nudity. US law considers females nipples to be nudity, but not male nipples. Although this is unfair, it's not really Weasyl's choice in the matter.
Having to define female nipples as referring to the female SEX is important, as previously mentioned.
I agree that genitalia is not always set to just cis male and cis female, but when it comes to legalities, this distiction has to be made because Weasyl (and any other website that has 18+ material, that minors can access) can come under legal fire if it doesn't.
Websites usually operate within accordance of the laws in which the server(s) are hosted, it's been said that Weasyl operates based on Delaware laws, so I would assume that's where the servers are located.


I'm not a mod, but it would seem that, if you upload, comment, create journal entries, or even fave stuff between the day you create the account and three months on, and are seen as still using the account in an active manner (not just logging on every 2 weeks; but uploading some new content) at say, the third and fourth month since account creation, you're safe. Citing the actual phrasing: "If an account has been created but has not been logged into or has not shown any activity since the day of registration, it will be released after three months.

I figured as much. Thanks!


Since the Moderate rating only clearly defines female anatomy, I was wondering just for clarification's sake - I'm assuming this also means no sheaths either? As in, not even remotely sexual the character is just an anthro male vs. a "ken doll" male. I think that needs to be added, only having female nipples down kinda leaves that open. Or if it differs between anthro characters having a sheath or anatomically correct feral art (not pornographic just realistic). Again, /I/ assume sheaths on anthro probably fall into not allowed on moderate but a piece meant to represent someone's male feral dog playing fetch would be alright? I just think that one bit needs to be more clear in the rules. Otherwise it all seems pretty straight forward.

Edit: Those above me brought up a good point with the "Barbie" look too on breasts.

Still interested in this as well. Read through the new TOS updates twice but didn't really find an answer.

Frank LeRenard
06-16-2014, 07:16 PM
RE: Releasing claimed usernames

You KNOW someone's going to abuse that. The whole reason 75% of people that create empty accounts do it is to prevent impersonation on sites they otherwise don't use. They try to head that off by registering their name, and then this yanks that out from under them and gives it right to the trolls that will gladly take advantage of it.

Batbot already mentioned this, but I wanted to reiterate it from an official perspective: if you see someone who's obviously using a name as a troll account, make sure to report it. We don't want loads of idle accounts, but we want loads of pretend accounts even less.

DenaliLobita
06-16-2014, 10:05 PM
I'm kind of really unhappy with the specification of "female" nipples being considered sexual but "male" nipples not. If you really have to classify nipples as sexual (coughtheyrenotcough), at least make it gender-neutral. It's pretty sexist to insist that the same body part is sexual on one gender but not another.


I too am bothered by this rule. It's very much so arbitrary.

pantherwhales
06-16-2014, 10:14 PM
I too am bothered by this rule. It's very much so arbitrary.

Thirding. If you're going to sexualize one, my suggestion would be to sexualize all. Make nipples in general require a higher than moderate rating.

Gamedog
06-16-2014, 10:24 PM
Thirding. If you're going to sexualize one, my suggestion would be to sexualize all. Make nipples in general require a higher than moderate rating.

So the solution to percieved strict guidelines is to restrict more..???
Honestly, I get where you're coming from, but this solution will piss more people off than necessary.

Rory
06-16-2014, 10:36 PM
There is nothing arbitrary about biologically female nipples being considered "sexualized" in our society. Go try walking outside as a female or female-bodied without a top on and see how fast you get the cops called on you. I mean, I understand where people are coming from but we can't rewrite the laws of American society. I know some people have brought up "well what about museums?", but those are institutions that are held to much different standards than an online art gallery website where ANYONE can come and upload work. It's not the same playing field.

pantherwhales
06-16-2014, 10:56 PM
There is nothing arbitrary about female nipples being considered "sexualized" in our society. Go try walking outside as a female without a top on and see how fast you get the cops called on you. I mean, I understand where people are coming from but we can't rewrite the laws of American society.

Unintentional as it may have been, I feel you just trivialized the efforts of anyone who has made or tried to make a difference in American society, especially those concerning LGBT/queer rights. Also, by your own definition then, exposed buttocks should also require a mature rating, as flaunting those in public would grant you a visit from the police regardless of your sex/gender, but those are allowed under the Moderate rating.


So the solution to percieved strict guidelines is to restrict more..???
Honestly, I get where you're coming from, but this solution will piss more people off than necessary.

People are already pissed off unecessarily.

Rory
06-16-2014, 11:06 PM
Unintentional as it may have been, I feel you just trivialized the efforts of anyone who has made or tried to make a difference in American society, especially those concerning LGBT/queer rights.

I vehemently disagree. I'm just going to quote my FtM best buddy, who I had read this thread:


"As a transman (HRT 3yrs, pre-top surgery), I have no issue with this. The website is an American website and must be held to American law. Female bodied chests are, unfortunately if you'd like, sexualized in mainstream American culture, as well as in many other cultures around the world. It has nothing to do with being "transphobic," it's about not getting the website shut down. I'm male, but as someone with a cisfemale body, if I were to go walking my dog down the street shirtless, you'd bet your arse I'd be arrested. Is it right? No, and it's what makes being trans difficult, but it's a reality. Get off your high horses and aim your vitriol at people who deserve it, not at staff trying not to get their site taken down."


And as to the exposed buttocks thing, yes, but in mainstream media you can see exposed buttocks being assigned a Moderate-ish rating (13/14/etc depending on the system). You will never see that with female nipples.

Atarashi
06-16-2014, 11:13 PM
Sheaths are considered "nudity" in art on Weasyl, regardless if they're on a feral or anthro. That's why this line was added: * Please note: ratings do not differentiate amongst different species or beings.

so a feral dog/horse/whatever that's an anatomical representation of real life animals (not pornographic or the focus of the picture) people see every day has to be rated mature 18+??? ....i guess i didn't expect that. that's like people taking fido for a walk and putting pants on him lol. sheaths on anthro - sure i get that...but otherwise that's just odd. that really really needs to be specifically added to the guidelines then because people definitely won't understand that. like that bolded bit really doesn't explain it at all and leaves it really vague and confusing.

Gamedog
06-16-2014, 11:19 PM
People are already pissed off unecessarily.
It's not Weasyl's fault. You are acting as if Weasyl has just decided to twiddle their evil moustaches and hate on trans folk but that isn't the case; it's the laws of America that dictate what is or isn't rated mature. Minors can access the site, allowing minors to view material that the USA considers to be material suitable for those 18+ would get Weasyl in trouble. The only other solution would be to make Weasyl a 18+ website and put an 18+ disclaimer on the site, cutting off 4500+ members (https://graphs.weasyl.com/static/) access to the site.


so a feral dog/horse/whatever that's an anatomical representation of real life animals (not pornographic or the focus of the picture) people see every day has to be rated mature 18+??? ....i guess i didn't expect that. that's like people taking fido for a walk and putting pants on him lol. sheaths on anthro - sure i get that...but otherwise that's just odd. that really really needs to be specifically added to the guidelines then because people definitely won't understand that. like that bolded bit really doesn't explain it at all and leaves it really vague and confusing.
Prior to this update I saw staff in another thread describing that it would be based on how "pronounced" it was. I didn't understand that either. What is pronounced? What isn't? I really, really don't understand why this would be 18+: https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/9b/21/4c/9b214cf289e01ce006794f8f94781d76c203b992f0fcd58df3 1acfc783be2f53.png
I understand an 18+ rating applying to an image where the non-aroused genitalia is the focus of the image, but I don't understand it otherwise.

Hendikins
06-16-2014, 11:23 PM
The problem with nipples from the point of view of somebody outside the USA is simple:

* US pornography laws are a minefield.
* US societal standards differentiate on this point.
* Weasyl LLC and the servers the site is hosted on are both under US jurisdiction.

A simplistic view is that we're merely covering our backsides. If the US based staff feel that it's required, I don't blame them in the slightest.

(For the record, we have LGBT staff who were involved in the rules update, so it would be quite unreasonable to suggest we're anti-LGBT...)

Atarashi
06-16-2014, 11:30 PM
Prior to this update I saw staff in another thread describing that it would be based on how "pronounced" it was. I didn't understand that either. What is pronounced? What isn't? I really, really don't understand why this would be 18+: https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/9b/21/4c/9b214cf289e01ce006794f8f94781d76c203b992f0fcd58df3 1acfc783be2f53.png
I understand an 18+ rating applying to an image where the non-aroused genitalia is the focus of the image, but I don't understand it otherwise.


yes! that's a perfect example. (found another, this is slightly more realistic in style: https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/87/62/c3/8762c37ab0ff9bb3833af0257a6916cbf7693800a28256b706 647fab4f90e04c.png) from the answer i got - without a doubt that image would now be 18+ like...you can see worse on real life dogs just out for a walk x.x again, if it is the FOCUS of the image or obviously pornographic for sure i understand that. but yeah, what i'm talking about is just anatomically correct/not focused on genitals pictures like what you've just linked. to me that would be general rated, but because it's so vague in the guidelines with male genitalia and with the answer i got here, now i'm not sure at all x.x i don't mind following the rules, i just want to make sure i understand what they are. if that image ends up being 18+ i'll find it really odd, but i'll accept it as long as i know that's the case.

Gamedog
06-16-2014, 11:40 PM
yes! that's a perfect example. from the answer i got - without a doubt that image would now be 18+ like...you can see worse on real life dogs just out for a walk x.x again, if it is the FOCUS of the image or obviously pornographic for sure i understand that. but yeah, what i'm talking about is just anatomically correct/not focused on genitals pictures like what you've just linked. to me that would be general rated, but because it's so vague in the guidelines with male genitalia and with the answer i got here, now i'm not sure at all x.x i don't mind following the rules, i just want to make sure i understand what they are. if that image ends up being 18+ i'll find it really odd, but i'll accept it as long as i know that's the case.

Real life dog photos are allowed without being censored or marked mature, and rightfully so. However, if it's turned into art, the rating shoots up to 18+. What if the image was eyeballed/referenced directly from a dog photo on Weasyl? Would that suddenly make it 18+?
In this case, photos = SFW, art = NSFW

This would be perfectly fine for Weasyl: http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/cynoclub/cynoclub0710/cynoclub071000024/1827395-beautiful-sitting-dog-purebred-jack-russel-terrier.jpg

... but if someone traced over it, they'd have to mark it as 18+????

Hewge
06-17-2014, 12:04 AM
You guys sure like to over complicate simple things.

Flygon
06-17-2014, 12:05 AM
This would be perfectly fine for Weasyl: http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/cynoclub/cynoclub0710/cynoclub071000024/1827395-beautiful-sitting-dog-purebred-jack-russel-terrier.jpg

... but if someone traced over it, they'd have to mark it as 18+????Yes.

If I'd have it be stuffed on a porn gallery as pornography (when traced over and redrawn), it makes pretty good sense to rate it as porn.

I don't see how it's all that complicated, personally.

Hendikins
06-17-2014, 12:37 AM
* US pornography laws are a minefield.

A particularly relevant document that has been brought up: Delaware Code - Section 1365: OBSCENE LITERATURE HARMFUL TO MINORS; CLASS A MISDEMEANOR (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/11/5/VII/1365).

The definition of nudity for the purposes of this document is worth noting:


(5) "Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.

It is also worth noting that Weasyl LLC is incorporated in Delaware, hence quoting the law of that state specifically.

A purpose of the content rating system is to ensure that minors can not view content that would not legally be allowed. When we have to work within laws like the above, it's no wonder the rule is written as it is. It has also been suggested that we could alter it to use the above definition of nudity and cite the relevant legislation.

Firehazard
06-17-2014, 01:05 AM
Given that this is one of those things that admins always claim to be doing out of legal obligation and nothing else, I don't get why nobody has ever thought to just run their sites out of Europe instead? Does the owner of the site have to personally be a citizen of Europe in order to do that?

uropygid
06-17-2014, 01:50 AM
I don't understand why the rule about nipples can't go back to the non-cissexist wording you had before. yes I know Weasyl must comply with US state law for where their servers are hosted, but it doesn't mean the explanation has to come off like you're specifically singling out trans/non-binary/genderqueer people. there was nothing wrong with the way this ruling was worded before it was changed, so what the heck, guys

also, how does the "biological female" rule apply to cis males with mammaries? (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gynecomastia/basics/definition/CON-20028710)

Hendikins
06-17-2014, 02:17 AM
I don't understand why the rule about nipples can't go back to the non-cissexist wording you had before.

The new wording is there to align the rule text with both relevant laws and the intent of the rule. The law says female nipples are 18+ stuff, and the intent of the rule is to only require an 18+ rating where needed to meet our legal obligations.

It's also a loosening of the rule in some situations (previously by the letter all nipples had to be 18+ regardless, this is no longer the case).

armaina
06-17-2014, 02:20 AM
Something I think that those responsible for writing the TOS need to realize is, if you're going to use plain English speak and not legalese for your TOS, you are going to have to take responsibility for the effects that it has on your users. The fact that you use the term only "female nipples", never clarifying in plains speech that it's not your definition, but the FCC's (correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that's the correct department in this regard) definition, means that you as a team and as a unit, subscribe to the idea that any AFAB or AFAB appearing body, is 'female'.

Taking the time to at least clarify in your text, that it's the FCC's definition of what 'female nipples' are, that you have to regrettably censor, can make a world of difference to at least distance yourselves in that none of you subscribe to the FCC's beliefs of what 'female' is. Yes, not everyone will be happy with the fact that they have to censor it in the first place, as someone that has worked at a hosting company for several years, I know how hard nosed some servers can be about those policies. But at the very least you can change your wording to acknowledge that you do not align yourself with the FCC's ideas of what a 'female' breast, is.


(For the record, we have LGBT staff who were involved in the rules update, so it would be quite unreasonable to suggest we're anti-LGBT...) (that's actually not proof of anything I've seen plenty of LGBT people that end up being radfem or truscum or any manner of exclusionary groups of people. Not saying anyone is, just saying that defense actually can't hold up)

uropygid
06-17-2014, 02:28 AM
The new wording is there to align the rule text with both relevant laws and the intent of the rule. The law says female nipples are 18+ stuff, and the intent of the rule is to only require an 18+ rating where needed to meet our legal obligations.

It's also a loosening of the rule in some situations (previously by the letter all nipples had to be 18+ regardless, this is no longer the case).

buttocks are included in many indecent exposure laws as well, including Delaware -- you may wish to amend your ruling to include that!

also what was wrong with the previous rule? that was looser than it is now. I guess I fail to see why "all nipples must be 18+" was a problem, that it had to be narrowed down?


Something I think that those responsible for writing the TOS need to realize is, if you're going to use plain English speak and not legalese for your TOS, you are going to have to take responsibility for the effects that it has on your users. The fact that you use the term only "female nipples", never clarifying in plains speech that it's not your definition, but the FCC's (correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that's the correct department in this regard) definition, means that you as a team and as a unit, subscribe to the idea that any AFAB or AFAB appearing body, is 'female'.

Taking the time to at least clarify in your text, that it's the FCC's definition of what 'female nipples' are, that you have to regrettably censor, can make a world of difference to at least distance yourselves in that none of you subscribe to the FCC's beliefs of what 'female' is. Yes, not everyone will be happy with the fact that they have to censor it in the first place, as someone that has worked at a hosting company for several years, I know how hard nosed some servers can be about those policies. But at the very least you can change your wording to acknowledge that you do not align yourself with the FCC's ideas of what a 'female' breast, is.

(that's actually not proof of anything I've seen plenty of LGBT people that end up being radfem or truscum or any manner of exclusionary groups of people. Not saying anyone is, just saying that defense actually can't hold up)

THIS. bolded emphasis mine.

Gamedog
06-17-2014, 08:19 AM
You guys sure like to over complicate simple things.
Well, when it affects you then perhaps you would understand. The issue that Atarashi and I are discussing is anything but "simple".


Yes.

If I'd have it be stuffed on a porn gallery as pornography (when traced over and redrawn), it makes pretty good sense to rate it as porn.

I don't see how it's all that complicated, personally.

I don't draw feral porn, my account is not a porn gallery, and the dog is not aroused.
If I were to trace over the image exactly as it is, why would this be considered porn?
The issue with feral art can't be a legality issue, because you can show a photo of a dog rolling on it's back to a minor and not have the cops banging on your door, because these things are not considered pornography. If it was a photo of an aroused animal then yes, you would. However, a dog rolling in the grass is not in a state of arousal, there is no pornography, there's nothing - it's completely legal, even in Delaware. That photo I linked is 110% legal, you can see photos just like it in pet food ads.
Hell, you can see WORSE in pet food ads:

http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs/nutripro-dog-food.jpeg
http://assets.dogtime.com/cel_asset/image/4f70d7daedbb2f5e640000c5/column_lifes-hard-for-a-fat-dog-_A.jpg
http://files2.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_1375/13752055/file/masterdog-light-dog-food-countryside-small-19119.jpg

^These were AWARD WINNING ads!!
http://www.meowoof.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/PetAds2.jpg
http://webspace.webring.com/people/vp/pawprint/images/oldprint31a.jpg

Fiz
06-17-2014, 08:26 AM
Okay I think at this point we know that people are not pleased with the wording and ruling, and people know that the staff's position is to try to uphold the law regarding this. Seeing as there is a large amount of people made to feel uncomfortable by this, that is not good and was never our intention.

So, now let's try to collaborate to try to fix this! I'm sure there is a way we can come to a compromise here.


Here are some ideas I've heard:

- Change it back to all-inclusive, non-gendered "nipples" all going into Mature like it was before.

Truth of the matter was, while that is how the wording was before, that was due to a typo. It was never enforced as it was written.

- Clarify that we are going by what the law's ruling regarding what "female" is in order to (regrettably) censor things, and that on a personal level we do not subscribe to what the law's beliefs are regarding sex and gender.

This was Armaina's suggestion (https://forums.weasyl.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?5882-Community-Guidelines-and-Ratings-Guide-Adjustments&p=66714&viewfull=1#post66714). (replaced FCC with law since the FCC has no bearing on internet communications (http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/faqs-internet)) I think it's a good idea but at the same time, I feel people will just believe we are hiding behind what the laws say in order to get away sound transphobic and/or cissexist.

- Change it to remove gendered terminology, and have it say something closer to "defined breasts including areola and nipple".

This might be our best bet so far, but people just may view the word 'defined' and think that it means large, so perhaps there is better wording for this one. Any suggestions?


Feel free to throw us more ideas for us to look at.

NEW: Further suggestions:

- Move the hosting to a European country to bypass laws regarding showing "female" breasts.

This isn't happening. It would be an expensive, logistical nightmare, and would possibly make our rules and guidelines more restricted depending on what country it was possibly moved to. It might solve the problem regarding the ratings of "female" breasts , but then we'd possibly have to entirely deny hosting for a lot more subjects. It'd cause more problems than it would solve.

Gamedog
06-17-2014, 08:33 AM
- Change it to remove gendered terminology, and have it say something closer to "defined breasts including areola and nipple".

This might be our best bet so far, but people just may view the word 'defined' and think that it means large, so perhaps there is better wording for this one. Any suggestions?

This is the best one in my opinion, but then you'd run into issues with people thinking that small/flat-chested women and transwomen don't count. To be completely honest, I don't think that there's a way to do this without offending at least one person, or making the rules unclear.
I do believe this one should work though.

Fiz
06-17-2014, 08:37 AM
This is the best one in my opinion, but then you'd run into issues with people thinking that small/flat-chested women and transwomen don't count. To be completely honest, I don't think that there's a way to do this without offending at least one person, or making the rules unclear.
I do believe this one should work though.


Yea that's why I've said that the word "defined" is possibly not the best word for this, since then people would get confused regarding folks with smaller breasts or flat chests.

You're right though, but I think we can come to a solution that'll make most people happy. Not everybody (because there is always going to be people that hate rules and guidelines as a default), but most people.

Frank LeRenard
06-17-2014, 08:40 AM
Regarding drawn vs. photographed animal genitalia, I want to point out that we had a fairly long discussion about this. Originally I was in the camp that other folks here seem to be in, namely that if male dogs don't need to wear pants outside in real life, why should we be putting drawn dog genitals into the mature category? In the end, though, the longer we discussed it, the more I realized it was mostly a matter of practicality: no one is going to pay much attention to the rules if they're full of exception clauses, and enforcement of the rules also becomes a giant hassle, since a lot of the enforcement is by necessity subjective anyway. Differentiating rules by species is just adding a whole other level of complexity that we didn't even want to think about (because then you start having to worry about, for example, what to do with sexualized robots, aliens, magical elemental beings, and so on ad infinitum). So the moderate solution was, if someone intentionally draws animal genitalia, that's a bit different than incidental photography of animal genitalia, so we'll just lump artwork of sex organs all in the same category. Not an ideal solution, I admit, but it helps keep things from becoming completely intractable (for staff and for users).
What that means is, the ratings guide applies across the board, from prairie dogs to spaceships.
If anyone has a better idea, though, let us know. I'm still feeling rather wishy-washy on this one myself.


Regarding the other thing (female nipples), I suppose we could put a clause in there stating that it's a legal issue... I can at least state that for myself, I agree that US law is pretty silly and Puritanical in this regard, and I can also state that I have no issue and feel I have no reason to ever take issue with anyone's sexuality/gender identity/etc. I also agree that the more we learn, the more it becomes clear that 'gender' isn't a purely binary concept (i.e. biology is not computer science). I can't speak for all staff members, of course, but that's where I stand. It is very difficult to please everyone about this, though.

As for basing the servers out of Europe, amusingly enough I half-jokingly brought that up in chat last night.... I wouldn't know the first thing about the feasibility of moving our stuff there, though. Something tells me it would be prohibitively expensive/a logistical nightmare, but I could be wrong.

Gamedog
06-17-2014, 08:59 AM
Regarding drawn vs. photographed animal genitalia, I want to point out that we had a fairly long discussion about this. Originally I was in the camp that other folks here seem to be in, namely that if male dogs don't need to wear pants outside in real life, why should we be putting drawn dog genitals into the mature category? In the end, though, the longer we discussed it, the more I realized it was mostly a matter of practicality: no one is going to pay much attention to the rules if they're full of exception clauses, and enforcement of the rules also becomes a giant hassle, since a lot of the enforcement is by necessity subjective anyway. Differentiating rules by species is just adding a whole other level of complexity that we didn't even want to think about (because then you start having to worry about, for example, what to do with sexualized robots, aliens, magical elemental beings, and so on ad infinitum). So the moderate solution was, if someone intentionally draws animal genitalia, that's a bit different than incidental photography of animal genitalia, so we'll just lump artwork of sex organs all in the same category. Not an ideal solution, I admit, but it helps keep things from becoming completely intractable (for staff and for users).
What that means is, the ratings guide applies across the board, from prairie dogs to spaceships.
If anyone has a better idea, though, let us know. I'm still feeling rather wishy-washy on this one myself.
My argument was not that it should be divided through species, but that feral animals when the genitalia is not the focus of the image, should not be considered pornography. It would not be hard to enforce, either. The examples Atarashi and I provided are examples of an image not focusing on genitalia:
https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/87/62/c3/8762c37ab0ff9bb3833af0257a6916cbf7693800a28256b706 647fab4f90e04c.png
https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/9b/21/4c/9b214cf289e01ce006794f8f94781d76c203b992f0fcd58df3 1acfc783be2f53.png

However, an image like this (NSFW) WOULD be considered mature/18+: https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/70/4b/b8/704bb8f9c850c4ee7dc9df0c724ce21222338cb3eca52ce02f e9c15d41bee549.png

I mean the rule for animal photography was changed to allow animal photos but as long as any genitals visible were not the focus of the picture. Why can't this be the same with art?

Term
06-17-2014, 09:10 AM
As for basing the servers out of Europe, amusingly enough I half-jokingly brought that up in chat last night.... I wouldn't know the first thing about the feasibility of moving our stuff there, though. Something tells me it would be prohibitively expensive/a logistical nightmare, but I could be wrong.

Even then the "just go to Europe" suggestion isn't really helpful when you consider what pornography laws exist in the EU. Depending on the country, we could possibly make Weasyl more restrictive by doing so, rather than more open.

Fiz
06-17-2014, 09:49 AM
Even then the "just go to Europe" suggestion isn't really helpful when you consider what pornography laws exist in the EU. Depending on the country, we could possibly make Weasyl more restrictive by doing so, rather than more open.

Yea, I think depending on the EU country, it'd heavily restrict what we could even host, let alone put into ratings. Plus like what Frank said, it'd be an expensive and logistical nightmare.

It's not an option. It might fix one problem but it'd cause so much more.

- - - Updated - - -


My argument was not that it should be divided through species, but that feral animals when the genitalia is not the focus of the image, should not be considered pornography. It would not be hard to enforce, either. The examples Atarashi and I provided are examples of an image not focusing on genitalia:
https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/87/62/c3/8762c37ab0ff9bb3833af0257a6916cbf7693800a28256b706 647fab4f90e04c.png
https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/9b/21/4c/9b214cf289e01ce006794f8f94781d76c203b992f0fcd58df3 1acfc783be2f53.png

Those seem more like bumps to me than detailed/defined genitalia though. Those -probably- wouldn't be bumped up rating wise unless there was some other context going on.



I mean the rule for animal photography was changed to allow animal photos but as long as any genitals visible were not the focus of the picture. Why can't this be the same with art?

Real animals cannot help being naked and having their genitals showing. People can chose what is and is not in a drawing though. Real dog can't chose whether his balls are flopped out, a person drawing a dog can chose whether or whether not to included flopped out balls. That is why.

Hope that helps a bit.

Gamedog
06-17-2014, 10:33 AM
Those seem more like bumps to me than detailed/defined genitalia though. Those -probably- wouldn't be bumped up rating wise unless there was some other context going on.
When does it cross the line from "bumps" into "detailed/defined"?


Real animals cannot help being naked and having their genitals showing. People can chose what is and is not in a drawing though. Real dog can't chose whether his balls are flopped out, a person drawing a dog can chose whether or whether not to included flopped out balls. That is why.

Hope that helps a bit.
Well we're debating on whether or not rating breasts/nipples as mature, surely people can just omit those in their art? :S

armaina
06-17-2014, 10:48 AM
Well we're debating on whether or not rating breasts/nipples as mature, surely people can just omit those in their art? :SYou're riding a very disturbing line, here. I'm no mod obvs, but I have to voice, I'm pretty bothered by the fact that you consider those the same at all. If you're genuinely upset about the idea that you can't show genitalia on animals and have it be regarded as 'general', then this maybe isn't the place for you.

LNight
06-17-2014, 11:13 AM
I have a small question: Would't it when it comes to the ratings be easier to make it 3 instead of 4? I mean Explicit and Mature are basically the same thing, and both of them requires you to be at least 18 years old before you can watch the content from them, to which nothing else is needed as you can legally watch everything.

A suggestion I would like is to also maybe give links or something to examples of art which would fit under each category, because I, and I might be one of a very few. Have both trouble and concerns about what actually fits in where, at least when it comes to Moderate and Mature because in some cases there's a small and thin, sometimes invisible line between the two depending on art.

And I know this have been answered already... But why should it come down to a simple choice of whether or not what the animal can choose to do? In a real picture yes the dog can't help itself but be naked, unless their owner or someone else put clothing on them, but the one having taken the picture, could have done it differently to avoid visible genitals, much like a artist can choose to either not make it in their art or then make it from a angle it would't be visible at in the first place either.

So why should a artist be afraid to make a anatomically correct picture of a Dog, jumping for a frisbee for instance, simply because they choose to do it from the side where the Sheath might be visible, just like if the artist had taken a picture of a Dog like that instead, where the Sheath would be visible to? That just seems unfair to the artist they have to shy away from something natural, simply because it's art and they can choose not to make it be there, if they wanna make something not only natural and common in the real world and life for any kind of age, but anatomically correct.

If a artist can't make and upload a picture of a dog laying on it's back or jumping or something, where the sheath is visible and they decide to make it. Then people should be allowed to upload a picture either where a dog does that and it's visible, because they decided to take it like that. Because then I can say in both cases: One decided to make it when they could also choose not to. But the one having taken the picture, could also have chosen not to. It's failed and stupid logic, you cannot say no to one but yes to the other, because of a choice of like that, that's unfair for the other party!

Term
06-17-2014, 11:28 AM
I have a small question: Would't it when it comes to the ratings be easier to make it 3 instead of 4? I mean Explicit and Mature are basically the same thing, and both of them requires you to be at least 18 years old before you can watch the content from them, to which nothing else is needed as you can legally watch everything.

The reason why we have four ratings was because, in the beginning of this site several users voiced their displeasure with having work they considered artistic nudity free of sexual context being lumped in with pornography, claiming it to be unfair that we treated porn and say figure drawing as the same thing. Which honestly they're dead-on, it is unfair for someone to have their artistic nudes unviewable unless a user also enables pornography.

As such the Mature category is for those users, of age, who wish to post, view, and critique work containing detailed nudity but don't necessarily wish to consume pornography.


So why should a artist be afraid to make a anatomically correct picture of a Dog, jumping for a frisbee for instance, simply because they choose to do it from the side where the Sheath might be visible, just like if the artist had taken a picture of a Dog like that instead, where the Sheath would be visible to? That just seems unfair to the artist they have to shy away from something natural, simply because it's art and they can choose not to make it be there, if they wanna make something not only natural and common in the real world and life for any kind of age, but anatomically correct.

They shouldn't be afraid. We're not banning people from posting the work. We simply ask that it be rated correctly according to our guidelines.

In regards to your secondary issue, yes we've already mentioned that there's a significant difference between incidental photography of an animal, as per your example of a dog jumping for a frisbee, and someone taking the time to meticulously draw an animal's genitalia.

Further our rules quickly become over complicated if we start making exceptions here and there for different species of animals or whether or not an animal is an anthro or feral. While it's not a perfect system, it's the one that the staff currently feel is the most effective to keep ourselves from creating needless loopholes, workarounds, and so forth, all for the sake of putting animal genitalia at a lower level.

Gamedog
06-17-2014, 11:37 AM
You're riding a very disturbing line, here. I'm no mod obvs, but I have to voice, I'm pretty bothered by the fact that you consider those the same at all. If you're genuinely upset about the idea that you can't show genitalia on animals and have it be regarded as 'general', then this maybe isn't the place for you.

I don't understand why what I said was disturbing. I'm upset because as an artist who draws safe-for-work feral art and blocks 18+ feral art, I will still be forced to mark most of my gallery as 18+.
We're debating on whether or not breasts are sexual, just like we're debating on whether or not the examples I've shown were. I don't see breasts as sexual and I don't see my examples as sexual, however my examples are considered 18+ while breasts aren't. That is what I'm debating, sorry if that disturbs you.

Perhaps if your gallery were to be marked as adult against your wishes for completely strange reasons, you'd understand why I (and other users) are upset.
Right now, my gallery either has to be re-drawn or marked as porn. I'm not happy about it.

Fiz
06-17-2014, 11:50 AM
I have a small question: Would't it when it comes to the ratings be easier to make it 3 instead of 4? I mean Explicit and Mature are basically the same thing, and both of them requires you to be at least 18 years old before you can watch the content from them, to which nothing else is needed as you can legally watch everything.

The 18+ rating was once one ratings category but it was split since people were unhappy with artistic nudity being grouped into the same category as porn. It's not being merged again.




Right now, my gallery either has to be re-drawn or marked as porn. I'm not happy about it.

I think you might be mistaken. The Mature category is -not- a porn category.


When does it cross the line from "bumps" into "detailed/defined"?

It might be best I try to demonstrate this with a picture. Note that I'm not good at feral art at all but I tried to depict what staff looks for when we rate stuff regarding feral art with sheaths:

NSFW Warning: Includes animal genital drawing. (http://gyazo.com/3e5e55f71a2f4ab4e47906f19ebf54cc)

armaina
06-17-2014, 11:57 AM
I don't understand why what I said was disturbing. Based on your earlier statement, you're regarding the outline of the breast the same as a very specific outline of a sheath and testicles. They're not the same at all and it bothers me that you considered them the same.

What is CAN be compared to, however, is drawing very obvious 'cameltoe' or the perfect outline of someone's genitals through clothing, both of which should not be marked as general, regardless of intent. That's why you can't mark images of animals that have a very obvious sheath and testicles, as 'general', regardless of intent.

Gamedog
06-17-2014, 12:10 PM
I think you might be mistaken. The Mature category is -not- a porn category.
I personally consider it to be because artistic nudity (a RL example would be Playboy) is in the same category.


It might be best I try to demonstrate this with a picture. Note that I'm not good at feral art at all but I tried to depict what staff looks for when we rate stuff regarding feral art with sheaths:

NSFW Warning: Includes animal genital drawing. (http://gyazo.com/3e5e55f71a2f4ab4e47906f19ebf54cc)

I appreciate the example but this just makes it needlessly complicated in my opinion, because now we have to ask:
- https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/a0/45/60/a04560ecc06ca5417d1f8a79512b829a348cb150c93fd7cd95 ee3fac6e89e95e.png
Does this count as drawing an "anus"?
- https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/51/a6/e8/51a6e840b7cbcb8ed590ae5e115fed4d8283690c6a427edbd4 70c90dea007dbb.jpg
How much has to show?
- https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/24/66/c2/2466c2496de19e81604bab3a4d6c2481b1913f260c80b964c8 5e7fb4036e8839.png
Will a dot knock it into 18+?
- https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/6d/92/b3/6d92b36c2d696857eddac6ec8155583f83d45431c9cdfdae3c 786494e796459e.jpg
Or fluff? (Can't really tell if that's even what it is)


What is CAN be compared to, however, is drawing very obvious 'cameltoe' or the perfect outline of someone's genitals through clothing, both of which should not be marked as general, regardless of intent. That's why you can't mark images of animals that have a very obvious sheath and testicles, as 'general', regardless of intent.

This would imply that the focus is on the bulge/genital outline under clothes which is 18+ material, just as I suggested the focus on genitals being 18+ material.

Fiz
06-17-2014, 12:25 PM
I appreciate the example but this just makes it needlessly complicated in my opinion, because now we have to ask:
- https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/a0/45/60/a04560ecc06ca5417d1f8a79512b829a348cb150c93fd7cd95 ee3fac6e89e95e.png
Does this count as drawing an "anus"?
- https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/51/a6/e8/51a6e840b7cbcb8ed590ae5e115fed4d8283690c6a427edbd4 70c90dea007dbb.jpg
How much has to show?
- https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/24/66/c2/2466c2496de19e81604bab3a4d6c2481b1913f260c80b964c8 5e7fb4036e8839.png
Will a dot knock it into 18+?
- https://www.weasyl.com/static/media/6d/92/b3/6d92b36c2d696857eddac6ec8155583f83d45431c9cdfdae3c 786494e796459e.jpg
Or fluff? (Can't really tell if that's even what it is)



1. Not really. General
2. Slight bumps. General
3. Likely since it's showing implications of a slit for the penis to come out/urethral hole. Mature
4. It just seems like fluff to me? General

tapewolf
06-17-2014, 12:50 PM
I could also do with a little guidance on when a bump becomes problematic, but regarding anthros rather than ferals. I have a few pinups or similar in my gallery and some of them have a slight bulge. Some of them were intended to be subtle and very mildly suggestive, one of them I don't think was actually intended that way but just came out like that.

Helpfully I can't yet post links to the (potentially) offending items, but I'd be a bit surprised if I was the only one with this question.
With luck, making this post will enable URL posting for a subsequent message.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, let's see if this works:
https://www.weasyl.com/submission/216581/daryil-present-for-merlin


This one was from a seduction scene in a comic I was doing, I set it to 'Moderate':
https://www.weasyl.com/submission/485016/azrael-x-jakob-or-not-as-the-case-may-be

Here's another pin-up type:
https://www.weasyl.com/submission/43467/you-sexy-thing-jakob

I could boost the rating a bit or heck, go back and erase the offending highlights as a 'Weasyl Special', but keeping track of per-site versions is a pain.

Fiz
06-17-2014, 01:09 PM
I could also do with a little guidance on when a bump becomes problematic, but regarding anthros rather than ferals. I have a few pinups or similar in my gallery and some of them have a slight bulge. Some of them were intended to be subtle and very mildly suggestive, one of them I don't think was actually intended that way but just came out like that.

Helpfully I can't yet post links to the (potentially) offending items, but I'd be a bit surprised if I was the only one with this question.
With luck, making this post will enable URL posting for a subsequent message.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, let's see if this works:
https://www.weasyl.com/submission/216581/daryil-present-for-merlin


This one was from a seduction scene in a comic I was doing, I set it to 'Moderate':
https://www.weasyl.com/submission/485016/azrael-x-jakob-or-not-as-the-case-may-be

Here's another pin-up type:
https://www.weasyl.com/submission/43467/you-sexy-thing-jakob

I could boost the rating a bit or heck, go back and erase the offending highlights as a 'Weasyl Special', but keeping track of per-site versions is a pain.

The ratings for your second and third link seem fine. First one could use a bump to Moderate 13+ since there is some sexually suggestive themes in it. Hope that helps! :)

tapewolf
06-17-2014, 01:39 PM
The ratings for your second and third link seem fine. First one could use a bump to Moderate 13+ since there is some sexually suggestive themes in it. Hope that helps! :)

Thanks, that was very helpful.

Fiz
06-17-2014, 02:20 PM
Reminder this thread isn't about discussion of personal opinions regarding gender and sex. Please don't derail the thread. Thanks.

SpottyJaguar
06-17-2014, 02:43 PM
Made an account just to post this, yay!

I am someone very displeased by this change and this wording choice, and I am also someone who is affected by it, being a dude with breasts.


- Change it to remove gendered terminology, and have it say something closer to "defined breasts including areola and nipple".

This might be our best bet so far, but people just may view the word 'defined' and think that it means large, so perhaps there is better wording for this one. Any suggestions?

I believe this is, without question, your best option. The long and short of it is that not only is the current wording is very transphobic and cissexist, but also that it is just plain unnecessary. Unless there is a clause in whatever relevant laws that says this subject matter must be described as "female," this remains a rule about displaying breasts, and little more, which means there is zero need for there to be anything inherently gendered about any of this.

However, let me quickly add that I don't think you should use "defined," as anything can be defined, but, rather "developed," as that is more specific. If necessary, go in further and specify a that you mean post-pubescent breasts, and specify the showing of nipples, etc.

For example, "May contain partial nudity (e.g. breast cleavage and exposed buttocks). May not include clearly defined genitalia, or developed and/or post-pubescent breasts showing nipples and/or areola (including prominent definition through clothing)." This makes it much more clear what we're talking about, and makes this a much less problematic and more enforceable rule. You could obviously tweak the wording some, if there is a need to, but, again, the point is that gendered language should not be necessary.

Honestly, and this is my main issue with what's been done, I could argue that there's a huge vagueness in simply saying "female breasts," and that it is a problem waiting to happen. What does that mean? Where exactly have you drawn the line? The current wording does not explain much.

I could be a teeny bit of a jerk and post a trans guy character, decide that his are male breasts - which I get to do, as they belong to a male person - and say that they're not breaking any rules! Of course, they would be, as this rule is/should be about exposure of breasts/nipples in and of themselves, but my actions would make the rule unenforceable without resorting to transphobia and cissexism. As it is, the rule cannot be enforced without deciding that someone's body parts are this or that; you would be forced to say that my character's breasts are female, as opposed to simply "the rule is about breasts with nipples, and these are breasts with nipples, so please change the rating."

Would many people do this? Perhaps not, but the fact that it is so incredibly possible due to the new wording is another example of why the wording should be changed.

This alternative is not only worlds more respectful, but more specific. I totally understand that Weasyl can't have breasts in and of themselves labeled as less than nudity because of current US laws, and I am not here to say that you should stand up to those laws*, or that, inversely, you should make any and all nipples, ever, at all, warrant a mature rating. Again, the core of this issue is not that some depictions of breasts shouldn't be considered nudity and warrant a mature rating, but rather that the change to the wording of the guidelines has become incredibly problematic when there is no apparent reason for it, and when it may actually be worse than non-problematic language.

I care greatly about Weasyl and do not wish any harm to the site. If you need to uphold laws, please do so! But I think myself and many others would be a lot more comfortable if you did so without also telling us that our body parts are inherently this or that.

* those laws are problematic themselves, because of the hopefully obvious problems (read: lots of sexism and cissexism and other uncool things) in policing breasts as they currently are, but I acknowledge that few, if any of us here are in a position to do anything about that at this time.

Runefox
06-17-2014, 02:55 PM
Reminder this thread isn't about discussion of personal opinions regarding gender and sex. Please don't derail the thread. Thanks.

That's funny, I'm pretty sure some posts earlier on (and the one right above mine!) were about exactly that - And are currently why you're "try(ing) to collaborate to try to fix this!"

Let's say I'm an average member, looking at the new guidelines. I see "Female nipples" - okay nipples on breasts, got it. I know the term refers to sex and not gender. If I see an alternative explanation like "Nipples on characters which display obvious, defined breast tissue with areola(e) which is not caused by a character's weight or body fat, regardless of gender identity"... uhhh... wait, so if a character is male but has breasts from a glandular thing is that still mature? Is this just talking about female breasts? I'm just gonna upload this as general because there's no areolae, just the nipples. Also her chest is flat so it's all good.

US law is clear: Female (as in sex) nipples are indecent. It's an archaic law that should be changed, but it's the law nonetheless and people have been and still do get arrested for it, even as a form of protest. The law doesn't care about gender, and there is no gender-neutral way to describe someone who is female-sexed. The notion of the separation of gender and sex in terms of language is a relatively new one due to society's widening acceptance of trans, intersex and genderqueer people, and as a result there is still a massive wave of confusion over how to define it in words.

So, when describing anatomy, the term "female" applies to characteristics mainly specific to the female side of the sex spectrum, whereby referring to "female sex organs" cannot be construed as meaning anything other than sex organs typical of natal females. Saying "female nipples" should therefore refer to the physical traits that nipples on the female sex exhibit - That being typically large but sometimes insignificant areola(e), a range of breast tissue supporting it, and typically more prominent structure than that on the male sex. An intersex individual by definition has traits of both sexes, and as a result can have female breasts with a male body structure, or no breasts but having a vagina or combination of vaginal and penile tissue. Transgendered individuals by definition are individuals whose sex does not match their gender, and as a result describing a pre-transition MtF as physically being male sexed is accurate. Any other description until completion of transition is not accurate.

What all this means in a nutshell is that no matter how you phrase this, you are going to inevitably end up still referencing physical sex or otherwise muddling the rules and making it harder on everyone. Therefore, my suggestion is simply to not change the wording at all, especially because reference is already made to US law regarding the subject.

Fiz
06-17-2014, 02:57 PM
Thanks muchly Spotty! "Developed" seems like a lot better descriptor for this, along with post-pubescent.

- - - Updated - - -



What all this means in a nutshell is that no matter how you phrase this, you are going to inevitably end up still referencing physical sex or otherwise muddling the rules and making it harder on everyone. Therefore, my suggestion is simply to not change the wording at all, especially because reference is already made to US law regarding the subject.

At this point, not changing the wording isn't really any option. Leaving it as is will, and is already, causing groups of people to be very uncomfortable, which was not our intention and is a big problem.

RedSavage
06-17-2014, 03:09 PM
Ohai don't mind me. I'm a transgender. MtF. I have no issue with any said terminology.

Everyone up in arms about the distinction of "female nipples". I'm sorry---but what exactly do you call nipples on top of full breasts? Female! They're a female sex organ! They're not talking about gender standards or conformity! They're being purely biological!

I'm sorry but to the folk who are shouting on about it, playing pedantics on mere terminology, YOU'RE the reason why trans-folk have a hard time being taken as serious, rational people when it comes to IMPORTANT ISSUES.

Grow up a bit. Please.

Runefox
06-17-2014, 03:11 PM
Thanks muchly Spotty! "Developed" seems like a lot better descriptor for this, along with post-pubescent.
What about flat-chested females? Breast cancer survivors? Males with glandular problems? Fat males? Fat females?


At this point, not changing the wording isn't really any option. Leaving it as is will, and is already, causing groups of people to be very uncomfortable, which was not our intention and is a big problem.
So what would make things comfortable? Would you go into great detail describing what a female sexed nipple looks like? Explain each fringe case that needs to be discussed in detail? Inundate the reader with a wall of text so that the general meaning of the rule no longer makes any sense?

Oh hey, maybe just add the term "sexed" after "female".

Zalcoti
06-17-2014, 03:17 PM
Until our language evolves to include nonbinary words (which means most of the population would use said terminology and know what you are talking about) it's going to be very hard to pinpoint with vague phrases.

RedSavage
06-17-2014, 03:29 PM
This is a joke.

You really know how to sum it all up in a single sentence.

tacticalsnake
06-17-2014, 03:30 PM
I do feel the new ToS/Guidelines would benefit from better clarification. As they say, it is better to be clear and concise. The dispute over nipples is exemplary here-- Either get rid of the "explanatory" paragraph because it is, in fact, totally unnecessary besides being grossly offensive, OR replace it with a SHORT line stating that this distinction is required by US/Delaware law as it currently stands, and that the server being located in Delaware makes it beholden to both Delware's laws and those of the United States. End of story. If you are really that worried about arguments from the Q and T people on the site, then use the right terms-- say Female Presenting. Please do not use offensive terminology because you think it is "more accurate." It's not. Definitely do not try to pile on as much as you possibly can. Whatever that paragraph is, it's a train wreck and it should not stay.

I disagree that there cannot be distinctions drawn between broad categories such as Anthro vs Feral, as those distinctions are rather important, particularly in terms of showing a character's bits for whatever reason (it's far more likely for the former to be "suggestive" than the latter). Again, this only requires a line stating such, not a book defining it. My suggestion is that ratings as they stand are fine for anthro, and that feral doesn't get pushed up until it's clearly sexual-- for illustrations (in written material mentions will obviously bump up the ratings either way since you don't need to mention sexy bits unless sexy sentiments and actions are going on).

I also feel that the allowance for "incidental nudity" in (animal) photographs is problematic. Long story short, it ignores how the medium of Photography works: You are supposed to take an enormous number of a particular scene in order to ensure a handful of viable images. For example, I usually tend to do like 20 of a single subject in a set, especially if I care about it, in hopes of getting like one or two images I can use and like. In the main, the photographer is not helpless and forced to deal with whatever they get because you exercise a certain level of control over what appears in your image. Therefore, it's not really "incidental" to post an image with, I don't know, a dog with an erection, because they could have freely chosen a better angle, cropped the image while working on it on the computer, examined it better before posting, or even waited for the dog to cease being aroused before taking pictures etc. This is in line with the minimum requirements for quality imposed on other media for this site.

Now, I do think that what's most important to remember is that it's better to assume the userbase can figure things out and exercise good judgement and so avoid lengthy discussions within rules posts that either make things confusing or encourage a Big Brother sort of site-culture (that is, people going well out of their way to report everything that might be considered against the rules, or worse, what they just don't like and want to be against the rules), which I've seen on other sites who decided meticulous rules were the best way to go. No matter what, rules will require explanation to some, and it's better that one just be encouraged to ask staff whose job is to explain than it is to try to preemptively cut off questions within the rules. It just creates more. This will also create a dialogue and rapport between users and staff.

I am glad to see that there is some acknowledgement of this in the thread so far as I have seen, and that there is interest from the staff in amending things if necessary. I did want to add in my thoughts because I do feel that the edits are in need of some revision, mostly in language (which is almost always true of any new terms posted unless you have a lawyer (or two) and specialized writers on staff!).

OH, also is there some site history concerning the importance of having tags that I'm missing because I don't understand why tags are supposed to be so important here. Principally I don't know why one is supposed to allow others to add tags to their work, as it feels obtrusive and presumptuous, but it seems that there are statutes here which rely on the history of the site (such as the immutable distinction between Mature and Explicit). This may just be my thing since I can be a bit territorial but since they were touched on I feel it's worth asking.

Runefox
06-17-2014, 03:37 PM
If you are really that worried about arguments from the Q and T people on the site, then use the right terms-- say Female Presenting. Please do not use offensive terminology because you think it is "more accurate." It's not. Definitely do not try to pile on as much as you possibly can. Whatever that paragraph is, it's a train wreck and it should not stay.

The problem with "female presenting" is that it's just that - Presentation. it doesn't describe them physically, it describes the way they act and present themselves to the world. By that definition, a FtM transgendered individual who has not transitioned (is still physically visibly of the female sex) is definitely not allowed to bare their chest by law. While there isn't a single word that describes someone who is physically female or has female characteristics, "female sexed" I personally feel sums it up enough.

If we did have separate words in our language to differentiate between gender and sex, then this wouldn't have happened. The intent behind the writing is obviously not transphobic if you read the asterisked explanation, but the distinction between sex and gender can be difficult to make going by context alone.

RedSavage
06-17-2014, 03:38 PM
Words in themselves are not offensive.

It's the individual that attaches meaning and connotation. It's the individual that takes offense.

tacticalsnake
06-17-2014, 03:44 PM
Since it takes me 12 years to type anything and there was a whole new page of posts, referencing the point about nipples--
The problem is that, yeah, you can argue all day long about exceptions to the rules, and you can come up with ways in which the term is offensive, but most of that is just arguing for the sake of arguing. We know the terms is are inadequate, we know that there is a huge variety of people in the world.
I still feel that it's preferable to iterate that it's only what's currently stipulated by law as that is apparently the major concern, that people know full well what is meant by "female nipples" and that the best clarification thereof is female presenting, in which the appearance is that of female breasts, whether modest or generous, and on one who is cis, trans*, intersexed or anything else. It's broad but it's also to the point, and common sense dictates that you know full well what that means. You shouldn't need bullet points because it's well known, or if it's not and someone tries to report and whine, it will become known via explanation.

And again, it's better to do one on one explanation, because trying to do it inline results in... This thread.

Toshabi
06-17-2014, 03:48 PM
This whole entire trans debate....


Wow. It really makes one question their stance on whether or not fighting for trans people is worth it. Kekeke.

Runefox
06-17-2014, 03:52 PM
The problem with bringing cis-, trans-, etc into the definition is that it's not common lexicon and it's specifically describing gender and not physical sex (intersex is different), which is what's pertinent to the rules and US law. The easiest to understand and most straightforward way to describe it is by defining it as physically female nipples. Doesn't matter what type of body they're attached to. You absolutely cannot describe them in a manner that omits "female" or language to that effect. The only way to be "gender neutral" is to make absolutely sure that you are referring to sexual characteristics and not gender.

Toshabi
06-17-2014, 03:54 PM
The problem is "WE DUNT LIEK THE WAY THIS IS WORDED, YOU OBVIOUSLY HATE TRANSEXUALZ YOU GODDAM KKK BIGGOTS HITLER NAZI CAPTAIN NOT-EARTH BASTARDS YOU WILL PAY FOR THIS DOWN WITH WEASYL" in my humble, non biased, Toshabi opinion, kekeke. It's a whole lot of putting words in people's mouth and creating a non problem into a problem. Kekekeke, I can't say I'm shocked that all the vocal and up-at-arms folks are-..... kekekeke, let's just not mention that last part, lest thingsget..... hairy..... kekekekekekekekekr

SpottyJaguar
06-17-2014, 03:58 PM
What about flat-chested females? Breast cancer survivors? Males with glandular problems? Fat males? Fat females?

Flat-chested is subjective. I can only assume this would be handled on a case-by-case basis, and, again, the issue would only be whether or not the breasts in question are large/developed/obvious enough to be considered nudity, and not whether or not they are "female," which I have already explained would be a great improvement.

For breast cancer survivors: since other people who have had their breasts removed would likely not count as being nude if their chests were visible, I would assume it'd be similar for those who have had their breasts removed for cancer reasons? Again, it would depend on the current state of their chests - whether they would be considered developed/obvious/large enough to warrant a higher rating.

Same for glandular issues (I assume you're referring to things like gynecomastia?). As for body fat... I suppose that is a grey area. For instance, I'm a dude with breasts, but I'm also fat. Yes, my chest is large, but where does one end and the other begin? There's also the fact that breast tissue is fatty tissue. Regardless of where the line is drawn, though, I don't see how this can be remedied with more gendered language.


So what would make things comfortable? Would you go into great detail describing what a female sexed nipple looks like? Explain each fringe case that needs to be discussed in detail? Inundate the reader with a wall of text so that the general meaning of the rule no longer makes any sense?

Oh hey, maybe just add the term "sexed" after "female".

Again, using language like this is incredibly problematic. As you say in your earlier post, we can't really discuss this without getting into less common views of gender and body parts - using "female-sexed" instead of only "female" or (implicitly) "female-gendered" is just as transphobic and cissexist and uncool.

Ultimately, the parameters around what can and can't be called nudity is outside of our control, due to the relevant US laws. The wording, however, is very much within our control, and very much needs to be changed. Saying "people are going to be upset no matter what you do" is unhelpful and, honestly, kind of dismissive.

Runefox
06-17-2014, 04:08 PM
Again, using language like this is incredibly problematic. As you say in your earlier post, we can't really discuss this without getting into less common views of gender and body parts - using "female-sexed" instead of only "female" or (implicitly) "female-gendered" is just as transphobic and cissexist and uncool.
How is "female-sexed" transphobic? It's describing the female sex. The physical condition of being female. Which is what cis-female and transitioned transfemales are. The distinction between sex and gender are exactly why transgender exists to begin with - The inversion or general separation of gender identity from physical sex. To call someone female sexed simply means to call them physically female. But more importantly, referring to a body part as female or belonging to someone of the female sex succinctly remedies the problem of communicating what the rule applies to. And however sexist the rule itself may be (the language in the rule has to make it obvious what it applies to), the rule is in place because of the law. For the rule to change, first does the law.


Ultimately, the parameters around what can and can't be called nudity is outside of our control, due to the relevant US laws. The wording, however, is very much within our control, and very much needs to be changed. Saying "people are going to be upset no matter what you do" is unhelpful and, honestly, kind of dismissive.
It's true though. I'm upset right now. Very much so, mainly because it's painfully obvious that the intention behind the rule isn't transphobic, and from my point of view, this is a needless assault in the name of political correctness.

tacticalsnake
06-17-2014, 04:13 PM
Yeah, I read that paragraph, and I get what they're going for, and I still feel that they botched it horribly. All the good intentions in the world won't recover it.

I know that, again, sexed is technically more correct, but since we're talking about artwork, I feel presenting is more accurate since the situation-- that showing parts has specific intent as far as describing a character as well as eliciting a reaction from the viewer of any sort-- is different and presentation describes it better.
Context is still going to be very important regardless.

- - - Updated - - -

Also I don't know about you all but I'm talking about that wretched "clarifying" paragraph here:
* Female in this case refers to organs which represent or imitate the traditional biological representation. While we understand many of our users may not subscribe to traditional gender/sex dichotomies, we are using this language to match present laws and entertainment requirements of the United States.

That's the thing I think needs dropped or changed, and as far as I recall was what was brought up in the first place, because it is awful and it focuses on a specific group of users (namely, anyone who is trans or genderqueer), as well as saying bizarre things like, "traditional biologic representation," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean-- it's so muddy that you can, if you wish, argue what is or is not included until the end of time. If someone needs it defined, you can just say, "It means nipples on what appears to be a female breast for the purposes of US laws and regulations."

Ah, I forgot to mention earlier-- the problem with saying sexed is that if sexed requires a total transition, and a character is shown without having had bottom surgery and is necessarily say, male sexed with female breasts, then what's going to be against US law would have to be allowed because the term sexed- which refers mostly to genitals, sometimes chromosomal sex as well- exempts the breasts incorrectly as male. Hence it's better to go by the appearance of the breast-- if it looks more like a female breast than a male one, regardless of the character's sex or gender, then it's a female breast for the purposes of abiding by US law.

SpottyJaguar
06-17-2014, 04:48 PM
How is "female-sexed" transphobic? It's describing the female sex. The physical condition of being female. Which is what cis-female and transitioned transfemales are. The distinction between sex and gender are exactly why transgender exists to begin with - The inversion or general separation of gender identity from physical sex. To call someone female sexed simply means to call them physically female.

The idea that physical/biological sex is set in stone and unchangeable without surgery or hormonal intervention is transphobic because it sets up parameters around what it means to "really be trans" that actively exclude trans people. For example, my body can be considered "female," however, the logic surrounding that assumption only leaves me two options if I want to be considered male: either just deal with it and be denied the ability to fully self-identify and self-label, or pursue hormone replacement therapy and/or surgery to "change my sex." But what happens if I don't want to pursue those things? Am I stuck being less trans, or not trans at all? Aren't I in charge of my own body? Why do other people get to define me? Policing identities and the bodies they're attached to in this way is transphobia and cissexism.


But more importantly, referring to a body part as female or belonging to someone of the female sex succinctly remedies the problem of communicating what the rule applies to.

It does not, actually. Again, to only say "female breasts/organs/elbows/etc" is not only problematic, but vague. What does this mean? Even if we go with only non-trans persons and bodies, there are still enormous variations between body types, and not all will meet all/many of the chekpoints required to be "male" or "female." I.E., Wide or narrow hips or shoulders, body hair patterns, hormonal patterns, etc. - many people just don't fit into the boxes society has made surrounding these two things, so describing something as just "female" simply cannot be specific enough, on top of being offensive.

Furthermore, the entire idea of "biological sexes," and that there are only ever two, and that they work ridgidly in X, Y, and Z ways, as opposed to recognized spectrum of gender and identity, is wildly flawed. [this is a spiffy post which goes into more detail on that subject.] (http://askanonbinary.tumblr.com/post/73987749581/)


It's true though. I'm upset right now. Very much so, mainly because it's painfully obvious that the intention behind the rule isn't transphobic, and from my point of view, this is a needless assault in the name of political correctness.

I can't speak for others, but I never, not once, said that this was Weasyl's intention. I will only go so far as to assume their intentions were to be specific, and all I'm doing is saying that they failed to do so, while also shitting on a lot of people.

Fiz
06-17-2014, 05:08 PM
This thread has been retired. We have created a new thread to reflect new wording changes. Please use the new thread to continue discussion:

https://forums.weasyl.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?5900-Community-Guidelines-and-Rating-Guide-Adjustments-UPDATED&p=66817#post66817