PDA

View Full Version : Community Guidelines and Rating Guide Adjustments. [UPDATED]



Fiz
06-17-2014, 05:06 PM
UPDATE: After concerns were brought forth and much discussion we have changed the wording regarding our ratings with nudity. Gendered terms were removed as well as our asterisked item regarding said gendered terms. The new wording has been added to both the normal ratings guide and the highlighted changes ratings guide. We thank everyone who collaborated with us regarding this issue.

http://media.tumblr.com/96ad214329cece066535ca472eee51b4/tumblr_inline_n79ybgXSoF1qevq43.jpg

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)

uropygid
06-17-2014, 06:40 PM
thank you for considering user feedback and changing the wording about the nipples rule -- I'm impressed with the rapid response, too. rock on, Weasyl. :D

Toshabi
06-17-2014, 06:47 PM
I'm pretty disappointed in the staff. That's all I have to say. It gives me a good idea of what to expect for future SJW topics that arise.

Noxid
06-17-2014, 07:16 PM
I'm pretty disappointed in the staff. That's all I have to say. It gives me a good idea of what to expect for future SJW topics that arise.

I don't think the compromise was /that/ bad
making guidelines is hard, they're just trying to find something that works for everyone. A fool's errand, perhaps, but still.

Toshabi
06-17-2014, 07:28 PM
I don't think the compromise was /that/ bad
making guidelines is hard, they're just trying to find something that works for everyone. A fool's errand, perhaps, but still.

The overall response from the naysayers was abhorent, to say the least. And worst of all? They were screaming "TRANSPHOBIA TRANSPHOBIA" at the drop of the hat rather than to stop and think for a moment as to what this was all about. Tis a cave in to petty demands from very petty folk. It goes to show how easy it is for some petty SJW political correctness to slap around the site's staff.


Perhaps I'm overstepping my boundaries by saying this, but that's my take on all of this. It's petty, over-dramatic bullshit. People should be ashamed of themselves for how they reacted and how petty they are for throwing around the term "transphobic" as some stupid "auto win" word for this debate. And people wonder why the world thinks so poorly of trans people, this whole incident is a step back. Shame on you all. I'm annoyed that, by PETTY reasoning and cave ins led to this resolve as opposed to intellectual debate.

Hewge
06-17-2014, 07:30 PM
How unnecessary.

Moogle
06-17-2014, 07:48 PM
I'm pretty neutral about all this, though I do think the site has done well in promptly addressing its user base and trying to make everyone pleased (which is near impossible!). Keep up the great work, Weasyl staff! :)

Gamedog
06-17-2014, 08:40 PM
Trying to operate an art website based on SJW-suggested guidelines is a futile effort, it will never work.
"Female sex" is biological and works. Sex and gender are two different things, but female sex is in no way transphobic, it's a biological terminology. Transgender is the belief that your gender and sex don't match up - I can't imagine anybody would disagree here or call this transphobic..??
Now that this can of worms has been opened, what if someone identifies as a flower? (No joke: http://askanonbinary.tumblr.com/nature, this page was linked in the previous thread) What if they find it offensive because the TOS is only focusing on transmen, transwomen, intersex, and cis? Now Weasyl is called transphobic all over again because it is non-inclusive to the Flower Folks of Asgardia.

Xan
06-17-2014, 09:33 PM
thanks for fixing this so quickly! i was pretty disappointed the original wording got through but im glad you put a priority on fixing it instead of just dismissing the criticism

armaina
06-17-2014, 09:34 PM
Hey! thanks for speaking with us about the wording on this, it really helps to know that the staff does care about the presentation of things and how it effects people. Who knows, maybe we'll be able to get a server somewhere down the line that doesn't categorize breasts as sexual, but until then, it's nice to know you'll do what you can to keep verbiage inclusive.

Amagire
06-17-2014, 10:11 PM
Thank you, Weasyl, for taking this seriously, and for being willing to incorporate more inclusive language into the Ratings Guidelines. It may not seem like a big deal to some, but a little goodwill goes a long way.

I doubt this decision to slightly reword one subclause of one portion of the site's TOS will result in a flowersexual apocalypse, but I almost hope so now, since that would be kinda cool.

Rory
06-17-2014, 10:29 PM
Now Weasyl is called transphobic all over again because it is non-inclusive to the Flower Folks of Asgardia.

I don't think this will happen, and if it does we'll deal with it the same we approached today's situation. It wasn't a matter of caving to demands, we genuinely thought we could do a better job of wording things to appeal to a broader audience, and we achieved that. Will we realistically be able to include everything that everyone will ever want? Absolutely not. Will we try our best to listen and reconsider if we could do something better? Absolutely. We'll take each issue as it comes, hopefully as a community that's willing to discuss and not throw accusatory terms around. I personally did not appreciate much of the vitriol and -phobic namecalling that came toward our staff today including myself, and I sincerely hope it doesn't happen again, but as staff we're able to separate personal feelings from our work.

Toshabi
06-17-2014, 10:59 PM
I suppose in the end, over-complicating basic terms that weren't even intended to offend or present views of phobia/malice towards a specific lifestyle was well worth it to meet the needs of the handful of Sally Sensitives that were pounding on your front door demanding bloodshed.


I believe some form of layman's terms are in order for people who don't speak rediculously over-the-top PC.

piñardilla
06-18-2014, 04:11 AM
Really, what's the argument for not making the rules as specific and unambiguous as possible, other than wanting to stick it to people that feel it's important to them? Did y'all want to have arguments about "oh these aren't female breasts they're futanari breasts so they're okay for General" and such?

Gamedog
06-18-2014, 10:59 AM
I don't think this will happen, and if it does we'll deal with it the same we approached today's situation. It wasn't a matter of caving to demands, we genuinely thought we could do a better job of wording things to appeal to a broader audience, and we achieved that. Will we realistically be able to include everything that everyone will ever want? Absolutely not. Will we try our best to listen and reconsider if we could do something better? Absolutely. We'll take each issue as it comes, hopefully as a community that's willing to discuss and not throw accusatory terms around. I personally did not appreciate much of the vitriol and -phobic namecalling that came toward our staff today including myself, and I sincerely hope it doesn't happen again, but as staff we're able to separate personal feelings from our work.

I was mostly being facetious, but also slightly serious because there are people who get extremely pissed off if you don't reply to them as "flowerself". They'll call you transphobic if you don't, I've encountered them personally because I accidentally called them "they". I appreciate that Weasyl wants to make all of it's userbase comfortable with terminology used on the site, but it's important to remember that it's literally impossible to make everybody comfortable and there's always the chance that the staff will get called -phobic again.

Fay V
06-18-2014, 12:15 PM
I was mostly being facetious, but also slightly serious because there are people who get extremely pissed off if you don't reply to them as "flowerself". They'll call you transphobic if you don't, I've encountered them personally because I accidentally called them "they". I appreciate that Weasyl wants to make all of it's userbase comfortable with terminology used on the site, but it's important to remember that it's literally impossible to make everybody comfortable and there's always the chance that the staff will get called -phobic again.

That's true, and that's something we are prepared for. In terms of what happened where I know I was not personally happy with some of the tones taken and rhetoric on both sides of the issue, I think there were people that behaved poorly, but there were also people that brought up good points and offered thoughtful solutions. In this case it worked out that we found something that worked to help the majority of people.

In the future something will come up, that's life, and it's not the insults, the bad behave we respond to, it's underlying arguments and reasons, which if we can account for effectively there's no reason not to. If it's not something we can easily fix and someone wants to call us names over that then...there's not a lot that can be done in that regard.

RedSavage
06-18-2014, 03:40 PM
I feel like, all in all, Weasyl staff took the high road and did what could be considered most mature in the extremely immature argument and situation being thrust on them. Instead of digging their feet in, they jumped to the side and let the flak-givers face plant in the dirt.

All I'm saying is when people remember the incident, they're going to remember how Staff acted versus Users, and I can guarantee that the effort put forth by staff will pay off in the long run as a whole for the whole website.

Even if it feels like biting the bullet, it better to remembered as compromising than stubborn---no matter how right anyone is or isn't.

SpottyJaguar
06-18-2014, 04:05 PM
A bit belated, but I wanted to say thanks for getting this taken care of so swiftly! To those who aren't complaining, it means a ton, and I for one appreciate it quite a lot. :)

QT Melon
06-18-2014, 05:22 PM
I'm overall disappointed in how this was handled and people arguing about it. But I suppose if people have to overhandle situations and make it a game of political minesweeper it just takes away what I originally came here for, which is sharing art.

Frank LeRenard
06-18-2014, 08:13 PM
but it's important to remember that it's literally impossible to make everybody comfortable

As evidenced by this thread now...

I guess what's intriguing to me is that when we decided to change the language after receiving numerous very vocal complaints, it appears now to be the case that most of the new complaints are coming about not because of the actual changes made, but because we decided to take vocal complaints into account in the first place.
This is a position I don't entirely understand, and I can only imagine it stems from a lack of trust that we as staff are able to make changes objectively, without being bullied into certain decisions. But in cases like this, where there is a very vocal set of people who call for a change in a less-than-civil way, and where another set of people very vocally oppose the first set, you run into a Catch-22 where no matter what course of action you take, one side or the other is going to say you're kowtowing to the other side. So yes, in the end we just have to look at the matter as objectively as possible and try to find a decent solution (in this case, using more neutral language, which incidentally may also have the practical benefit of being more difficult to misinterpret). I know saying that won't immediately disabuse everyone of the notion that we were bullied into this decision, but I thought I'd say it anyway.

Gamedog
06-18-2014, 08:44 PM
As evidenced by this thread now...

I guess what's intriguing to me is that when we decided to change the language after receiving numerous very vocal complaints, it appears now to be the case that most of the new complaints are coming about not because of the actual changes made, but because we decided to take vocal complaints into account in the first place.
Not exactly.
It's that the change was catered to people who were getting upset over the terms that were implying tits only belong on cis females (UNDERSTANDABLE), despite those people who were complaining were the ones confusing gender with sex, while lecturing people on gender vs sex.
Y'all were called transphobic not because of the original definition, but because someone claimed that when referring to "female breasts" in regards to the law, you were being transphobic because you were referring to the biological female sex.
Apparently saying "biologically female" is transphobic because "you are implying that sex is absolute and can only be changed with a sex change". (Uhhh yes??????)
The definition about defined breasts was suitable IMO and I couldn't see how it could have been taken as transphobic whatsoever because it was speaking purely from a biological standpoint.

The rules were bent because someone confused gender with sex and labeled y'all transphobic because of it. That's the issue I personally have with it. If someone can cry "-phobia!" and have you guys try and walk on eggshells trying to figure out how to not upset someone, how are the rules ever supposed to be clear-cut on these issues?

Frank LeRenard
06-18-2014, 09:23 PM
That's the issue I personally have with it. If someone can cry "-phobia!" and have you guys try and walk on eggshells trying to figure out how to not upset someone, how are the rules ever supposed to be clear-cut on these issues?

I'm not going to address the point made about gender versus sex, because this isn't the thread for that. Plus that's a quagmire I really don't want to step into at this point.

As for the quoted text, this kind of statement is where I got the idea that the problem was more with the fact that action was taken, rather than with the action that was taken (excuse the confusing grammar). So, please excuse me, I feel like I already addressed this point in my previous post. If this is just a case of 'agree to disagree', so be it, I suppose.

QT Melon
06-18-2014, 09:56 PM
I just find it more confusing and headache inducing to be honest. I don't want to read a contract that has a bunch of astercks. It's bad enough to see every so often artists getting scared of TOS agreements only to have another one look just as migraine inducing because of something that had no business being in there in the first place.

It's fairly obvious it was about sex not gender. I feel for people with gender identity, but this exercise in trying to be overly political doesn't make things more comfortable having to read and go through as an artist who just wants to submit work.

Swanda
06-18-2014, 10:45 PM
I quite honestly think the change of language made the rule quite simpler to understand?
Also, It's not in Any way more text than before, so I think QT Melon is hitting way off target with the "people will get scared away."
As nothing is more scary than a ton of unnecessary text. Such as the Apology previously found under the discussed rule.
And that is what I REALLY think the "Oh noo don't bend to the SJW's!" people should take note to.
The wording was so troubling before, that even those who wrote it felt like they needed to apologize for it.
People screaming Transphobia wrongly or not doesn't change the underlying problem; the rules should Never. Ever. have to apologize for themselves in such manner.

QT Melon
06-19-2014, 12:13 AM
This is a general art site, so the more it becomes political the more it seems cornered into catering for specific types of people. I already did my best to encourage more artists of different types to come here but the more things like this happen the more they tel me it's really catered towards furry or agendas so.. :/

I guess I'm off base then...

Gamedog
06-19-2014, 12:41 AM
As nothing is more scary than a ton of unnecessary text. Such as the Apology previously found under the discussed rule.
And that is what I REALLY think the "Oh noo don't bend to the SJW's!" people should take note to.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't really think that's what the issue we had with it was. I personally agree with you that the disclaimer beforehand could be upsetting to trans, but I personally had an issue with what really kicked the change into gear.
Was the change needed? Yes
Was the disclaimer text upsetting? Yes
That is not what I meant by SJW, what I meant by SJW is that the Weasyl staff were literally being called transphobic because one person confused sex with gender. If all you have to do to get a rule changed (for better or for worse) is to call someone a transphobe without even being correct in what you're saying to back up this accusation, there's an issue TBH.

piñardilla
06-19-2014, 12:51 AM
yes once a word ending in "-phobe" is invoked the only appropriate course of action is to refuse to address the problem any further out of spite

Toshabi
06-19-2014, 01:38 AM
This is a general art site, so the more it becomes political the more it seems cornered into catering for specific types of people. I already did my best to encourage more artists of different types to come here but the more things like this happen the more they tel me it's really catered towards furry or agendas so.. :/

I guess I'm off base then...

It's probably because furry websites have to lay down clear rules when it comes to ratings. We don't want any confusion when it comes to our porn, now do we? kekekekekeke

SiranaJHelena
06-19-2014, 03:46 AM
Hello everyone,

at first, thanks for defining the rules a little bit better. :)
Also I'm pretty surprised how fast the guidelines were changed again after the gender topic was critizised here.

I still have an issue and I really hope I'm not insulting anyone by writing about it. That's not the purpose of my post, I asure you! I'm neither really used to the English language nor the details in the behaviour... ^^; If I use some overdoing language I really only do this to clarify my point, not to abuse anyone.

The guidelines leave me with some questions, especially on the violence topic. I mean, it's very obvious I shouldn't upload two werewolves ripping a sheep apart with the "general" rating. I'm more concearned about seeing pictures I for myself wouldn't call "moderate" or "mature" because of different opinions of violence due to another heritage.
I'm living in Germany while this page is hosted in USA and I know "we" have in general very different opinions about violence and sexual content. It's more or less common knowledge (or common cliché knowledge) over here that many US Americans are really concerned about showing stuff which could be misinterpreted as sexual content while throwing around litres of blood and guts is more or less ok. And as far as I know this also shows in the laws which built the basic for the Weasyl guidelines as far as I understood.
In Germany it's the completely opposite mentality. Boobs in the prime time? A little bit sketchy but ok. Bikini adverts where you have to search for the Bikini with a magnifier? Who cares. But OMG blood! Put a censor bar over that bleeding nose! (Ok, not that harsh but with the crazy censoring of video games you sometimes really have that feeling. And yes, we do have the very same violent pictures from wars in television like you... m) ) I'm not so sure what excatly which law says abouts what but the mentality is completely swap around to what I know from your country.

So if I read the guidelines I know how I would "read" them, but I'm really unsure if that's what supposed to mean (and hence which rating I should use in future.) It really took me a while to even think of some kind of violence which could be considered as "General" at all. Could you please be so kind to give me a few examples to the guidelines of "general" and "moderate"? Not necessarily with pictures, phrases like "nosebleeding", "punch-up in the bar with blood", "throwing livers and kidneys around" will also do it. How do you define these ratings?

Thanks for reading and again a huge sorry if I accidently assulted anyone here. :(

Frank LeRenard
06-19-2014, 09:18 AM
If all you have to do to get a rule changed (for better or for worse) is to call someone a transphobe without even being correct in what you're saying to back up this accusation, there's an issue TBH.

No, that's not all you have to do to get a rule changed.
However, if you do call us out, and if it sounds like you're doing so out of genuine concern or offense, we will take the time to listen. Just, you know... in the future, folks, try to be a little more polite about it and don't just assume we're mean-spirited bigots.



Could you please be so kind to give me a few examples to the guidelines of "general" and "moderate"?
Sure thing!
General-rated violence is the kind of thing you might see in cartoon shows (e.g. the Looney Tunes, Tom and Jerry, etc.). So that would include characters punching or hitting each other but not leaving behind realistic looking bruises or blood (unless it's in very small amounts; a line of red indicating a small cut, for example), or things like bloodless removal of limbs (something like this (http://steve-marlow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/218px-headlesschicken.jpg)), and so on.

Once you start adding in realism, it should at least be Moderate. So a character punching another in the face with a spray of blood out the nose would be Moderate, someone depicted with a cut-up, horribly bruised face would be Moderate, and so would a character getting stabbed if you see blood or a real-looking wound. Lots of artists also do a sort of horror-fantasy theme wherein they draw characters missing parts of their bodies or that have bones and organs visible; depending on how gruesome it is (and that's something we just have to judge), those kinds of things could also go under Moderate. So, certain kinds of zombies might go under Moderate, for example, as long as it's not, say, The Walking Dead quality.

Once you start getting into things like realistic disembowelment, realistic severing of limbs, copious amounts of blood pouring out of wounds or mouths or eyes, torture, etc., that all starts to go under Mature or Explicit. So, that scene from the original Robocop where the ED-209 robot riddles that guy with bullets in the conference room: that would go under at least Mature. Any kind of sexual or sexualized violence needs to be Explicit, as usual.


Does this help at all? I'm hoping just to give you a general sense of where we draw the line in each case, so let me know if I can clarify anything else for you.

Reagan
06-19-2014, 09:28 AM
This is explanation is super helpful, thank you so much. Do breasts fall into the rule in the same way?

I'm mostly wondering if uncovered breasts are okay as long as they lack an overt sexual scenario and or nipple/areola. My main doesn't wear a shirt often but that doesn't mean that every picture with her in it is sexual so I'd like to mark the majority of them as general.

Swanda
06-19-2014, 09:30 AM
I can only speak for myself, but I don't really think that's what the issue we had with it was. I personally agree with you that the disclaimer beforehand could be upsetting to trans, but I personally had an issue with what really kicked the change into gear.
Was the change needed? Yes
Was the disclaimer text upsetting? Yes
That is not what I meant by SJW, what I meant by SJW is that the Weasyl staff were literally being called transphobic because one person confused sex with gender. If all you have to do to get a rule changed (for better or for worse) is to call someone a transphobe without even being correct in what you're saying to back up this accusation, there's an issue TBH.

I'm just Going to quote piñardilla, because this is Exactly what you appear to be saying.

yes once a word ending in "-phobe" is invoked the only appropriate course of action is to refuse to address the problem any further out of spite

Daeodon
06-19-2014, 09:45 AM
I suppose in the end, over-complicating basic terms that weren't even intended to offend or present views of phobia/malice towards a specific lifestyle was well worth it to meet the needs of the handful of Sally Sensitives that were pounding on your front door demanding bloodshed.


I believe some form of layman's terms are in order for people who don't speak rediculously over-the-top PC.


The complaints were very civil, actually- you're the one bitterly and violently opposed to a minor change to wording. Please stop attacking the admins over it, they have everyone's best interests in mind and weren't bullied into anything, as they've already stated.

EDIT: Additionally: "this might be considered transphobic" =/= "you are an evil transphobe!!!"

Reagan
06-19-2014, 09:59 AM
EDIT: Additionally: "this might be considered transphobic" =/= "you are an evil transphobe!!!"

Very much this. Just because someone points out that you are doing something transphobic doesn't mean they are calling you a transphobe in fact is probably means they think you ARENT a transphobe and therefore capable of change.

I'm very glad to have contributed to a site that is willing to listen to users that feel hurt and then change accordingly. Being PC? Yeah that's something a website should try to do when it carters to a large audience. Weasyl has a large number of furry users who are disproportionately LGBTIA+ so yeah they should try pretty hard to be PC.

What I'm saying is that I like weasyl and weasyl staff a whole lot.

QT Melon
06-19-2014, 10:06 AM
The complaints were very civil, actually- you're the one bitterly and violently opposed to a minor change to wording. Please stop attacking the admins over it, they have everyone's best interests in mind and weren't bullied into anything, as they've already stated.

EDIT: Additionally: "this might be considered transphobic" =/= "you are an evil transphobe!!!"


This isn't very productive either. I'm sure finger pointing going No U instead of expressing concerns and singling out users, looks...highly mature.

Daeodon
06-19-2014, 10:07 AM
Very much this. Just because someone points out that you are doing something transphobic doesn't mean they are calling you a transphobe in fact is probably means they think you ARENT a transphobe and therefore capable of change.

I'm very glad to have contributed to a site that is willing to listen to users that feel hurt and then change accordingly. Being PC? Yeah that's something a website should try to do when it carters to a large audience. Weasyl has a large number of furry users who are disproportionately LGBTIA+ so yeah they should try pretty hard to be PC.

What I'm saying is that I like weasyl and weasyl staff a whole lot.

Pretty well said.

"sjw" is almost exclusively a term used to shut down and silence LGBTIA+ folk who have an opinion on... anything. And in this case, people are literally using it to gripe at the mods for actually listening to their userbase, which is something most websites (lookin at you, furaffinity) fail to do. The fact that someone can be so caught up in their anti-sjw rhetoric that they get mad at the mods for doing their job.... yup. Nature sure is amazing.


This isn't very productive either. I'm sure finger pointing going No U instead of expressing concerns and singling out users, looks...highly mature.

What I'm mainly trying to say is the mods did their job, they're actively trying to do their job better, and getting angry because they're actively attempting to be clearer and more inclusive is backwards and silly.

QT Melon
06-19-2014, 10:11 AM
What I'm mainly trying to say is the mods did their job, they're actively trying to do their job better, and getting angry because they're actively attempting to be clearer and more inclusive is backwards and silly.

Then kindly focus on supporting them instead of engaging in the finger pointing.

Daeodon
06-19-2014, 10:30 AM
Then kindly focus on supporting them instead of engaging in the finger pointing.

Supporting the mods is the exact reason I posted at all, if it isn't clear. Even if they've made a misstep here or there, they're trying, they're listening, and when they genuinely think they've done something wrong, they change it- that's what matters, and that's what puts weasyl above other websites.

Crapping on them for something like that is ridiculous, and if pointing that out doesn't measure up to your personal standards of maturity, then it's not really any of my concern.

SiranaJHelena
06-19-2014, 10:46 AM
Does this help at all? I'm hoping just to give you a general sense of where we draw the line in each case, so let me know if I can clarify anything else for you.
Thank you for this particularised answer! It indeed helps me to understand better how everything is classified. :)

Talking about removed limbs an additional question came into my mind I'd like to bug you with. What if a character design includes some kind of handicap like a missing leg, large fire scars or something like that? I mean, small scars are often part of character designs and I suppose nobody gets unconscious because of a small scratch behind the right ear but that's not the kind of old wound I'm thinking of.

How should I handle a picture of e.g. an old soldier with a missing arm and a large scar who is playing with his child on a sunny day? (Let's say for this example there is no blood visible because his injuries happened 10+ years ago.) Do I have to put it moderate as soon as I draw him in a realistic way because you can see an arm stump and the ugly large scar? Or is this fine with "General" because it's clearly a scene without any violent or sexual content?

I know it's a very special question but I have a cat with a missing eye and finger as a sketch in my gallery (relaxing on a rock, not bleeding) and I'm still thinking about making a larger and more realistic version of her one day or even use her as OC. :)

Fay V
06-19-2014, 10:49 AM
I can only speak for myself, but I don't really think that's what the issue we had with it was. I personally agree with you that the disclaimer beforehand could be upsetting to trans, but I personally had an issue with what really kicked the change into gear.
Was the change needed? Yes
Was the disclaimer text upsetting? Yes
That is not what I meant by SJW, what I meant by SJW is that the Weasyl staff were literally being called transphobic because one person confused sex with gender. If all you have to do to get a rule changed (for better or for worse) is to call someone a transphobe without even being correct in what you're saying to back up this accusation, there's an issue TBH.

tbh I think this a bit of an assumption. So you see yourself that there was indeed a problem, the language was problematic, you admit that a change would be beneficial, but you are upset that we responded to the problem after people called us transphobic. Please correct me if I'm putting your words in your mouth.

So if no one had called us transphobic and we fixed a problem it would have been a good move.
If one had been more calm about it and alerted us to the issue it would have been a good move.

So regardless of our actions we are beholden to the minority that acted poorly, it's assumed we only acted because they yelled at us.
It is equally likely the comment drew our attention to the problem and we wanted to fix it, but because poor behavior was visible it's assumed we as staff did the worst action and wanted to reward that behavior rather than fix a problem.

There's not much that we can do in this instance to show our intent. We can't take back what others said, we had little option if we both agree there was a problem to be fixed, so in the end we have to ask that users have at least some faith that we wanted to fix the problem.

Because we can't make an alternate universe where bed behavior did not occur, so all we have is two possible explanations and we need users to at least trust a little that in the future when there's no problem and bad behavior we won't act on it, or when there's a problem and good behavior we'll act on it.

Fiz
06-19-2014, 11:02 AM
Thank you for this particularised answer! It indeed helps me to understand better how everything is classified. :)

Talking about removed limbs an additional question came into my mind I'd like to bug you with. What if a character design includes some kind of handicap like a missing leg, large fire scars or something like that? I mean, small scars are often part of character designs and I suppose nobody gets unconscious because of a small scratch behind the right ear but that's not the kind of old wound I'm thinking of.

How should I handle a picture of e.g. an old soldier with a missing arm and a large scar who is playing with his child on a sunny day? (Let's say for this example there is no blood visible because his injuries happened 10+ years ago.) Do I have to put it moderate as soon as I draw him in a realistic way because you can see an arm stump and the ugly large scar? Or is this fine with "General" because it's clearly a scene without any violent or sexual content?

I know it's a very special question but I have a cat with a missing eye and finger as a sketch in my gallery (relaxing on a rock, not bleeding) and I'm still thinking about making a larger and more realistic version of her one day or even use her as OC. :)

That sounds more like something that'd be fine for the General category. Everything is a case-by-case thing of course, but I wouldn't see us changing the rating of something just because of stumps of amputees or eye scars.

SiranaJHelena
06-19-2014, 11:25 AM
That sounds more like something that'd be fine for the General category. Everything is a case-by-case thing of course, but I wouldn't see us changing the rating of something just because of stumps of amputees or eye scars.
Thanks Fiz! Now all my questions about the rating are answered. :thumbsup:

RedSavage
06-19-2014, 11:35 AM
yes once a word ending in "-phobe" is invoked the only appropriate course of action is to refuse to address the problem any further out of spite

Seriously.

Who can honesty say that the right course of action here was to ignore everything and clear and lock the update thread? Just lock the thread. Leave the terminology. Ban anyone who brings it up in an another topic. Because god DAMN they made a personal attack, by golly. And we should drop all pretense of professionalism in the face of immaturity.

Does this sound familiar? This is a lot of old drama that's been repeated in many forms across many sites. Only difference is, instead of clamming up and shutting down dissent on a personal set of ideals, as so many site admins have in the past, the site staff separated themselves from it and said, "How can we fix this? People are unhappy. Some justified, some not, but who are we as admins to decide that? Instead, let's focus on the solution."


@Qtmelon: You keep expressing your disdain for this game of "politics" being played. Let me ask you something. Are you upset because of that fact, or the fact that YOUR politics, already in place and seem as the 'norm', are coming under attack?

What are 'politics'? Ideals and ideas about the way a community interacts? Maybe. Maybe not. I think we participate in politics all the time in some way whether we think it or not, though. And saying "well I think this politic business is silly" when you've already had your own politics in place for while (whether or not you see it that way) just comes off as an unwillingness to change.

Food for thought. That said, I don't feel like politics had any play. It can be REALLY easy to put that label on it, but it's just a meatier and general connotation that sweeps under the rug the idea that this should be a site that listen to their userbase.


On an aside, last I remember admins joining a forum conversation to address issues, it's was Dragoneer and Chase waving their banhammer-dicks around the FA forums, only addressing issues what they saw fit to answer in vague half answers, banning anyone who was too 'loud' for their likes. Anyone who expressed their dislike for Neer putting a friend in charge for no other apparent reason.

Now, THAT, I think is a decent image of down and dirty politics. Politics is jut a derivative of "Policy", policy making and handling of the likes. Politics as a neutral approach to fixing policy is not a bad thing in itself. BAD politics is another story.

I know people want to keep this site in a two-horse country kid of feel where everyone waves at their neighbor and helps harvest the crops in fall, but even a two-horse town has at least a Mayor and Sheriff. And I bet they do a little bit of politicin' too.

Term
06-19-2014, 12:08 PM
Just for kicks, I went ahead and put down some thoughts about this, regarding both the concerns of our users and the process of how we handle feedback by writing a journal.

To help keep the thread from getting swamped in my wall of text, here's the link: https://www.weasyl.com/journal/55887/thoughts-on-the-recent-cg-rg-changes

A bit TL : DR but I think worth a read. Course I may be biased. :P

Gamedog
06-19-2014, 12:18 PM
tbh I think this a bit of an assumption. So you see yourself that there was indeed a problem, the language was problematic, you admit that a change would be beneficial, but you are upset that we responded to the problem after people called us transphobic. Please correct me if I'm putting your words in your mouth.

That isn't really what I meant. I don't feel like discussing it further here in this thread, so you can message me if you would like to hear me explain it better.


That sounds more like something that'd be fine for the General category. Everything is a case-by-case thing of course, but I wouldn't see us changing the rating of something just because of stumps of amputees or eye scars.
What about self-harm scars? Sometimes they are important to a character's background.

Reagan
06-19-2014, 12:38 PM
What about self-harm scars? Sometimes they are important to a character's background.

Are they fresh oozing hyper-realistic wounds? Rules seem to be pretty clear that things that are cartoonish/not graphic can be under general. Lines on a characters wrist aren't very graphic.

If you are asking these questions not because you want the rule clarified but because you wan't to push your point I'd ask that you stop. There are folks, like me, who are asking genuine questions and could actually use the staff's assistance.

Gamedog
06-19-2014, 01:02 PM
Are they fresh oozing hyper-realistic wounds? Rules seem to be pretty clear that things that are cartoonish/not graphic can be under general. Lines on a characters wrist aren't very graphic.

If you are asking these questions not because you want the rule clarified but because you wan't to push your point I'd ask that you stop. There are folks, like me, who are asking genuine questions and could actually use the staff's assistance.

...wwwhat.
I have two characters with scars, we are talking about whether or not scars are to be rated higher than general.
Self-harm scars can go beyond "lines on a wrist" and can go into huge patches of scars with hair loss, cigarette burn marks, etc.

Fay V
06-19-2014, 02:03 PM
...wwwhat.
I have two characters with scars, we are talking about whether or not scars are to be rated higher than general.
Self-harm scars can go beyond "lines on a wrist" and can go into huge patches of scars with hair loss, cigarette burn marks, etc.
Here is an example of what I would say is a "general" worthy representation of scars
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111018002115/avatar/images/archive/6/68/20140128110441!Song%27s_scar.png

Avatar did this really well, the scars are extensive and part of the characters but aren't grotesque or disturbing.

Self harm is at least a moderate subject, and a piece focusing on creation of scars, or the background of self harm may be rated up, but the presense of extensive scarring as a character feature does not in itself mean the character is not appropriate for general view.

Again Avatar is my example as not only do the characters feature extensive scarring or damage, but they are still portrayed in a manner designated okay for children under 13 to view.

Gamedog
06-19-2014, 02:37 PM
Here is an example of what I would say is a "general" worthy representation of scars
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111018002115/avatar/images/archive/6/68/20140128110441!Song%27s_scar.png

Avatar did this really well, the scars are extensive and part of the characters but aren't grotesque or disturbing.

Self harm is at least a moderate subject, and a piece focusing on creation of scars, or the background of self harm may be rated up, but the presense of extensive scarring as a character feature does not in itself mean the character is not appropriate for general view.

Again Avatar is my example as not only do the characters feature extensive scarring or damage, but they are still portrayed in a manner designated okay for children under 13 to view.

Great explanation. Thanks!

QT Melon
06-19-2014, 03:04 PM
@Qtmelon: You keep expressing your disdain for this game of "politics" being played. Let me ask you something. Are you upset because of that fact, or the fact that YOUR politics, already in place and seem as the 'norm', are coming under attack?


This makes no sense. I have no political agenda. What kind of accusation is that?

It also makes me sad that Weasyl has to be constantly compared to FA, this shouldn't be FA Jr.

RedSavage
06-19-2014, 03:24 PM
This makes no sense. I have no political agenda. What kind of accusation is that?

It also makes me sad that Weasyl has to be constantly compared to FA, this shouldn't be FA Jr.

Well you completely missed/ignored what I said about it being more about competing ideals and beliefs.The whole paragraph after the one you quoted in fact. : /

And I think "contrast" is more applicable. I was distinctly giving examples how Weasyl staff handled this differently.

QT Melon
06-19-2014, 03:54 PM
You're still making a comparison to FA when I feel that it shouldn't be necessary. It shouldn't have to constantly be compared to that site. It's disheartening.

I again don't have some kind of political agenda. This whole mess started because someone who did have an agenda misinterpreted something and made accusations towards the staff. The issue had nothing to do with any phobia. Instead it was used to further complicate the matter which comes off as more bullying despite what the staff said because there was a better way to sidestep that issue instead of looking like it was caving into a heated accusation that came up several times.

Glad they're happy they reworded it, but it feels like a nightmare when it comes to posting art that who knows how quickly people have to constantly change a TOS when someone got hurt over something. And by hurt, it has nothing to do with calling people SJW or whatever nonsense people use to do the opposite kinds of bullying that has gone on this thread.

It just makes it feel like a TOS was rushed out, or people are wishy washy. Especially since it was really an issue of reading comprehension that turned into something more political.

BlueJaySF
06-19-2014, 04:57 PM
If I can't trust the staff to make decisions on their own in spite of the noise level created by some people, then what exactly am I supposed to do? Forcibly supplant them?

It may be that people are upset that this revision came about after a particular debacle, but it's asinine to believe that the argument commanded their discussion or that the forcefulness of certain persons bought and sold support for the changes in any direction.

I have seen staff fuck up. I was standing right there in the chat directly named and linked to a PG-13 site when the shit hit the fan, very serious accusations of racism amongst the staff. It was all the more troubling because all of the persons involved were all senior site staff or users, and every single one of them knew better.

Those accusations were completely valid, by the way, and the reason they even had substance was the admin responsible, a very senior member, "just stopped caring" until the shit hit the fan.

This situation is wholly different. Weasyl is not under the control of those driven by malice. The language is clarified and written so that people are not shoehorned into categories they do not wish to subscribe to. It may be that uploading may be a modicum more effort-requiring than before, but it's a far cry from being anti-user. It only asks a bit more thought from the content creator, and if expecting people to exercise a little more thought or ask for a little clarity from the staff is too much, then we should stop expecting people to learn how to use basic language skills that don't look like an AOL chatroom shit them out.

RedSavage
06-19-2014, 05:01 PM
@Qt Unless I'm mistaken, you wanted the TOS to be the same, yes? Unchanged. As is. Scientific terminology.

"Their" agenda is TO change, so to speak. Social awareness. Nonoffensive language.

Basically I'm saying the willingness to keep things as they are is an agenda itself, and you cant really call out the perfect inverse of the view (to change) as an agenda without a sense of irony if you don't recognize your own pull in it all. And I do mean pull--not simply a steadfast defense against this "other aggressor".

I really hate that we have these
Factions now. I didn't agree with the way the message was put by them, and not even the message. I thought the terminology was fine as is and perfectly clear and Nonoffensive.

But I also don't agree with this HMPH attitude at the admin's eventual course of action. What does it matter, in the end? And how else were they to diffuse the situation? Damned if they do,
Damned if they don't.

As for the rushed and wishy washy TOS, I think in the end the changes were minor. And that it's better than hordes claiming that Weasyl overloads are dictators with ironclad rules with no near update or change to it in sight.

Gamedog
06-19-2014, 05:55 PM
QTMelon said it better than I could have.

Frank LeRenard
06-19-2014, 06:45 PM
We seem to be quickly veering into the realms of theory, speculation, and slippery-slope type arguments at this point. Because in my experience that's pretty much a no-man's land in terms of resolving conflicts, I'm going to go ahead and bow out of the conversation. I'll still keep an eye on this thread and address addressable concerns.

avan
06-20-2014, 11:19 AM
Based on the first few posts and rory's response to them in the other thread, I have no idea what constitutes a 'curvaceous/well-defined' breast. (Nor do I understand why its an issue but thats another topic on its own)

Fiz
06-20-2014, 11:25 AM
This is explanation is super helpful, thank you so much. Do breasts fall into the rule in the same way?

I'm mostly wondering if uncovered breasts are okay as long as they lack an overt sexual scenario and or nipple/areola. My main doesn't wear a shirt often but that doesn't mean that every picture with her in it is sexual so I'd like to mark the majority of them as general.

Sorry, missed this comment.

In the context of your comment, a picture like that would be fine in General.

Gamedog
06-20-2014, 11:59 AM
Based on the first few posts and rory's response to them in the other thread, I have no idea what constitutes a 'curvaceous/well-defined' breast. (Nor do I understand why its an issue but thats another topic on its own)

It was basically a way to explain biological sexed"female" breasts, as in breasts used for babies.. as compared to a typical "dude" chest with no tits.
There's no non-transphobic way to explain this so I'm sorry if I made this more confusing.

avan
06-20-2014, 12:18 PM
Yeah... I'm only more confused at this point, especially since what I think you're getting at applied to both images, not a case of one but not the other.

Also, at least from what I'm getting from your description, it seems biased against individuals with particular morphologies, since when rendered clothesless for the same non-sexualized level of detail they end up not being able to be classed as general and must be classed as moderate, and thus cannot be viewed by non-logged in users.

Gamedog
06-20-2014, 12:27 PM
Yeah... I'm only more confused at this point, especially since what I think you're getting at applied to both images, not a case of one but not the other.

Also, at least from what I'm getting from your description, it seems biased against individuals with particular morphologies, since when rendered clothesless for the same non-sexualized level of detail they end up not being able to be classed as general and must be classed as moderate, and thus cannot be viewed by non-logged in users.

It basically applies to cis women, transwomen, and pre-op transmen is how I understand it.

Like I said, I think there is really no way to explain what "defined, curvaceous breasts" means without talking about babies, getting into what some people might call transphobic, or saying "case by case basis".

Firehazard
06-21-2014, 03:59 PM
Hang on. I thought the objections that people were bringing up were to the rules themselves, not the wording of them. As in, the notion of making a distinction between male and female breasts is inherently not only transphobic but sexist as well.

I mean, we're looking for ways to separate ourselves from other similar sites; why not relocate the servers to Europe, reclassify the pieces that are rated Mature for nudity to Moderate, and add a warning that in certain countries that will not be named, certain Moderate-rated pieces may be considered not-safe-for-work? That would get people to take notice, and earn us a lot of brownie points with people who are sick of the puritanical rules on sites like deviantART. It might be the way to appeal to non-furries that we've been looking for.

Fay V
06-21-2014, 05:13 PM
Hang on. I thought the objections that people were bringing up were to the rules themselves, not the wording of them. As in, the notion of making a distinction between male and female breasts is inherently not only transphobic but sexist as well.

I mean, we're looking for ways to separate ourselves from other similar sites; why not relocate the servers to Europe, reclassify the pieces that are rated Mature for nudity to Moderate, and add a warning that in certain countries that will not be named, certain Moderate-rated pieces may be considered not-safe-for-work? That would get people to take notice, and earn us a lot of brownie points with people who are sick of the puritanical rules on sites like deviantART. It might be the way to appeal to non-furries that we've been looking for.

Well there was the camp that dislikes the rule itself and another that disliked the wording, and the camps may have overlapped a bit.

For the second we changed the wording, problem there seems to be solved.

For problem one, it's the laws themselves that have us tied here for the US. The thing is, "move to europe" isn't a feasible option atm, much like it's not a good way to deal with disagreeing with traffic laws. There's several reasons for this.

1. The logistics would be a nightmare. It's more expensive and less reliable than we have now. But even if we were to work out server we could afford that are reliable most of the time, fixing problems when they do arrive (nothing is perfect) our tech team is on this side of the ocean and would need to coordinate what is the problem and how to fix it.

2. The majority of our staff are American. We're happy to have our international staff, we want to see a lot of diversity in our staff, but we're still a largely American group. We know the American laws, we have a network of resources that are American, and most importantly our legal consultant is an American lawyer.
It would be insane to attempt to teach a lot of our staff the rules for another country without the benefit of the resources we've built up over our own careers.

3. It's a give a take. For every rule you get around with one country, you get additional ones. Some countries in Europe will be more lenient on the breast nudity (not all mind you) but a lot of artwork would be at risk for bestiality laws (and not necessarily just feral artwork) or couldn't have artwork featuring Nazis.
European countries have just as many fiddly laws. It is not a magic land of freedom unfortunately.
Unless we went for countries that are reeeeeally lax for laws...and then you have infrastructure problems from part 1.

Basically "Move to Europe" to answer this is like saying "move to europe" over traffic laws. It's a huuuge investment for no pay off.

avan
06-21-2014, 11:14 PM
Hang on. I thought the objections that people were bringing up were to the rules themselves, not the wording of them. As in, the notion of making a distinction between male and female breasts is inherently not only transphobic but sexist as well. That was my objection [dealing with curvature/shape] (Though I was specifically objecting to the specific interpretation of the rules as I understood them from a user - I'm not even sure if that's how the rules were meant to be interpreted)

Gamedog
06-21-2014, 11:24 PM
(I'm not even sure if that's how the rules were meant to be interpreted)

Neither am I, I was just explaining it as how I think it's set to be. Sorry for confusion :(

rbartrop
06-22-2014, 12:40 PM
I was a little concerned at first that a good chunk of what I do was going to end up blocked from non-registered viewers, but it practice, if there's any kind of negative impact, I can't see it. In any case, I respect what the mods are trying to do with the Moderate rating.

The fact is, at this point in time, male and female torsos are regarded differently, and there's a army of artists dedicated to exploring those differences. It's ridiculous to try and pretend that we don't, and it has nothing to do with regarding one gender of greater worth than there other.

And I'm still trying to figure out how this is any kind of slight against the transgendered.

avan
06-22-2014, 04:19 PM
I don't like the fact that just because of one's morphology, and that alone (everything else being the same, rendering style, pose, context, intent, etc), suddenly makes it worthy of a rating change (again, going with this interpretation of the rule, if its not the correct interpretation, this post can be ignored, but the rule should be clarified at least). That's just terrible in my opinion.

Fay V
06-22-2014, 04:46 PM
I don't like the fact that just because of one's morphology, and that alone (everything else being the same, rendering style, pose, context, intent, etc), suddenly makes it worthy of a rating change (again, going with this interpretation of the rule, if its not the correct interpretation, this post can be ignored, but the rule should be clarified at least). That's just terrible in my opinion.

The issue is U.S. Laws say we can not allow minors to access "obscene" material. U.S. Law also indicates that bare female breasts with nipples are unacceptable for minors, but male nipples and any fat in that area is fine.

Obscenity laws in the U.S. are annoying and the line is pretty much "I know it when I see it" meaning if you want to play at the line you need to be prepared to go to court. This has happened in the past with many classical works of art, and a judge ruled if it was obscene or not, we can't afford to do that so we need to follow the letter of the law, and because transgender morphologies are not well recognized in the law, those that have mammaries or surgery to replicate mammaries need to be inaccessible to minors on this site so we do not end up in court.

All this being the case the staff had the choice where every nipple and bare chest=mature, or bite the policy bullet and have the majority of items in general or moderate and mammaries are mature content.

rbartrop
06-22-2014, 07:10 PM
If I understand the rule correctly, a covered yet prominent female breast will still get a Moderate rating, so if you were to try and apply things equally, then any depiction of any figure of any sort would be inaccessible to anyone under 13, which strikes me as a step backwards.

As for trans-gender issues, maybe I've missed something along the way, but I thought you just addressed the transgendered by the gender they identify with. Female appearance = female and male appearance = male. At least, that's been my experience with the few transgendered I've dealt with.

Gamedog
06-22-2014, 07:22 PM
If I understand the rule correctly, a covered yet prominent female breast will still get a Moderate rating, so if you were to try and apply things equally, then any depiction of any figure of any sort would be inaccessible to anyone under 13, which strikes me as a step backwards.

As for trans-gender issues, maybe I've missed something along the way, but I thought you just addressed the transgendered by the gender they identify with. Female appearance = female and male appearance = male. At least, that's been my experience with the few transgendered I've dealt with.

No, it's only for nudity. You can't have defined breasts or biologically female breasts exposed. Nudity (any) is not allowed in General. If your drawing has biologically female breasts with nipples, it's not even allowed in moderate, and has to go into mature. This includes nipples showing through a shirt.

The issue with the perceived transphobia was due to users stating that tits aren't exclusively a "female" thing. A FtM trans man with breasts can still be considered male, and the presence of tits doesn't make him a female.
However, because Weasyl operates on US law and US law doesn't take trans people into consideration when discussing things like female nudity, it was called transphobic.

avan
06-22-2014, 10:29 PM
The issue is U.S. Laws say we can not allow minors to access "obscene" material. U.S. Law also indicates that bare female breasts with nipples are unacceptable for minors, but male nipples and any fat in that area is fine. I wasn't taking issue with that - thats a legal constraint which I understand (unfortunately) exists due to society being backwards. Its rather the distinction between general & moderate that I had been taking issue with - where assuming the LOD (Level of Detail) is identical, suddenly having a certain class of breasts becomes unacceptable? Thats what I take issue with (Or perhaps the initial interpretation of the rule given to me was wrong, but just goes to show that it ought to be clarified).

Fay V
06-23-2014, 01:23 AM
I wasn't taking issue with that - thats a legal constraint which I understand (unfortunately) exists due to society being backwards. Its rather the distinction between general & moderate that I had been taking issue with - where assuming the LOD (Level of Detail) is identical, suddenly having a certain class of breasts becomes unacceptable? Thats what I take issue with (Or perhaps the initial interpretation of the rule given to me was wrong, but just goes to show that it ought to be clarified).

That's not really the case.
For instance, this is general: Avatar kids in bathing suits
(http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11900000/The-Beach-avatar-the-last-airbender-11985700-720-480.jpg) All the same level of detail. The guys are shirtless but the nipples are not super defined or detailed. Girls breasts are covered, the nipples aren't defined and poking through the material.

It's moderate if the suits are more revealing, for guys wearing a speedo with an big bulge, for girls wearing a bikini that defies the laws of physics. Both have their own specifics based on equipment available.

For instance if guys are covered but the bulge is so clearly defined we know his religion it will be rated up. For girls if the suit covering her breasts may as well just be painted on, it will be rated up.

It's a matter of rating up over the detail for the area in question. The only major different is a guy with detail nips showing can be moderate but a girl with visible nips is mature.

avan
06-23-2014, 02:12 AM
Um... Ok I think I'm just getting more confused at this point. I wasn't talking about nipples, but rather what 'clearly defined breasts' meant. Also I think a lot of that post went over my head, but probably since we were talking about different things.

Gamedog
06-23-2014, 02:46 AM
"for girls wearing a bikini that defies the laws of physics. "

??

Fay V
06-23-2014, 03:10 AM
"for girls wearing a bikini that defies the laws of physics. "

??

large well defined breasts held in by straps that logically would not be able to support the breasts nor stay on.

- - - Updated - - -


Um... Ok I think I'm just getting more confused at this point. I wasn't talking about nipples, but rather what 'clearly defined breasts' meant. Also I think a lot of that post went over my head, but probably since we were talking about different things.

This is well defined, moderate breasts (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/dustin_reno2/Whatever/nagi005.jpg), note this is from an anime that wasn't shown on american tv before 10 pm

Here's an example from pokemon. Here is a general pic, it showed for kids on daytime tv. (http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/122380/2513041-jessie_bikini_illusion_1_.jpg) you can see she's female, you can see she has breasts, but it isn't well defined clevage.

Here's same show, same character, more definition of the breasts makes this moderate. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/Pok%C3%A9mon_episode_Beauty_and_the_Beach_-_screen_capture_.jpg) this ep was deemed inappropriate for kids under 13 and was pulled from US markets. James (purple haired person) in particular has well defined breasts and a suit that would be deemed moderate.

Gamedog
06-23-2014, 03:24 AM
OH lol okay I get what you mean.

Gamedog
06-23-2014, 11:00 PM
Something I was thinking about earlier tonight and another reason why I think the rules here are BS: It's been stated that the rules carry over from feral to anthro, vise versa, whatever.
Nipples are to be put into 18+, it's called "artistic nudity" all the way up to porn. If you draw nipples on a short-coated dog, you have to slide it into 18+

This is a crock. Y'all have to be joking, right? You can't be serious.

I made this for this thread
http://vpx.pl/i/2014/06/24/GIRLS.png

piñardilla
06-24-2014, 02:06 AM
Dogs don't have visibly developed mammaries.

Gamedog
06-24-2014, 02:51 AM
Dogs don't have visibly developed mammaries.
One would think the rules would be that clear cut, right?
The issue is nipples and "you dont have to draw them". yeah well you also don't have to draw tits on an anthro, you don't have to give a bird gal tits, you don't have to give a furry hair on his head, you don't have to draw your furries with four toes on their feet instead of five
thing is, it's a style choice that is unfairly being censored needlessly.
I asked this question before. ive literally been arguing about this for months now.

if nipples on a feral dog are cool,i can't see why anything i've brought up before wouldn't be. i'm seriously pissed off because I feel like this is being needlessly shoved to the side as porn or (lol, i literally received this explanation once) "nudity"
feral fursonas are considered nude. (and thus,one would think nipples on a bitch is considered nudity because a bitch is a female (sex) dog)

EDIT:Also, an example i provided that showed a tiny glimpse of a horse's ball was considered fine because it was "just a bump"
so
just saying. where is the line drawn, honestly. where. i have 3 more ref sheets to to that have male dogs, just wondering if i'm gonna have to label my entire fucking gallery as nudity, or have the style of my art vary throughout my gallery and look inconsistent, or spend time re-drawing my art
just because nobody wants to accept the fact that there is no legal reason for this rule.

QT Melon
06-24-2014, 03:55 AM
Dogs don't have visibly developed mammaries.

Teats? Females do especially when nursing.

http://sectorlearning.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nursing-dog.jpg
http://sectorlearning.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nursing-dog.jpg

Gamedog
06-24-2014, 04:45 AM
Teats? Females do especially when nursing.

http://sectorlearning.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nursing-dog.jpg
http://sectorlearning.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nursing-dog.jpg

If someone wants to argue that the rule doesn't apply to non-nursing dogs (like in the example I provided), it still wouldn't work out logically even then, because the rules say that it carries over to anthro as well.
Me drawing "flat" nipples on a bitch wouldn't be allowed in general because if I were to draw a flat-chested, female-sexed anthro who is 18+ and topless with nipples, it'd go into 18+

the rules are so fucked.

I made a gif
HOT BITCHES OF ALL BREEDS AND COLOURS
TAKE YOUR PICK
$10 LAPDANCE
http://vpx.pl/i/2014/06/24/HOTBITCHES.gif

piñardilla
06-24-2014, 05:34 AM
Teats? Females do especially when nursing.

http://sectorlearning.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nursing-dog.jpg
http://sectorlearning.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nursing-dog.jpg

In the case of someone drawing a lactating dog and posting it to a predominately furry art site, I think the plausible deniability threshold of it not being sexual in nature has been breached and it shouldn't be posted with a General rating.

Gamedog
06-24-2014, 05:53 AM
In the case of someone drawing a lactating dog and posting it to a predominately furry art site, I think the plausible deniability threshold of it not being sexual in nature has been breached and it shouldn't be posted with a General rating.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/315/9/3/pittie_banks_by_kapieren-d5kq2mn.png

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Pittie-Banks-337139663

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/358/6/6/664bb5c0be2a2fbf8b4fc2f6cd48010c-d4k53sb.jpg

http://sassawj.deviantart.com/art/Prisoners-of-Greed-275695211

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/271/3/8/3834b1b6fc9b218d26536d50cdaa2a33-d5g4vps.png

http://sassawj.deviantart.com/art/Breed-Me-Just-Because-I-m-Purebred-329432464

Are these pornographic images to you?


EDIT: Here's more
http://grungepuppy.deviantart.com/art/More-Is-More-70815013
http://disoxyde.deviantart.com/art/Jenny-notalone-438212046

Honestly, if your first thought when looking at these images is something inappropriate, that's on you. These images were not drawn for sexual purposes, they were not drawn for arousal or to get someone off. If someone can look at a non-sexual image that was drawn for non-sexual purposes and see something sexual in it, that's an issue with that individual person.
Some people jack off to planes, trees, legs, shoes, etc. That doesn't mean we should go ahead and censor all of these things.
On top of all that, some people like to roleplay kennels, they like to draw a pair of dogs, horses, whatever, draw the pregnant bitch, and draw all of the pups and none of it is intended to be sexual. Seriously, go over to Deviantart and just search up "kennel", you'll find thousands of images like it.

http://foreignfrontierranch.deviantart.com/art/What-She-is-pregnant-307954179
http://galacticzero.deviantart.com/art/Pregnant-Ember-174656918
http://tyrannosaurusrexkenn.deviantart.com/art/Pregnant-Star-415163005
http://foreignfrontierranch.deviantart.com/art/Kagiso-Pregnant-pic-303920579

Some people get so serious about it that they actually draw show scenes, they draw their fake dogs winning fake titles at fake dog shows
http://sharaiza.deviantart.com/art/Coming-from-the-same-Kennel-403060175
and then they fake breed their fake dogs and produce fake prize winning pups
http://evilduckie227.deviantart.com/art/The-Kennel-135221908
http://whospeaks-kennel.deviantart.com/art/W-K-Doe-x-W-K-Big-Red-Akita-Inu-Litter-OPEN-322291318
(some of these people actually health check their fake dogs)
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/330/8/f/8f0b17b0f06a713c73211011f029b348-d6voviv.png

Know what the kicker is?
None of this is sexual, pornographic, or includes nudity.
None of this is against the law
None of this is illegal to be viewed by minors

Do they have to do any of those things? Do they have to draw this stuff? No, but they do because it's fun, because it's not illegal, and because they like to be creative. You don't have to draw tits or a sheath on a dog, but so what if you do? There's nothing sexual about it. It's an art style, some people like to be more realistic. You don't have to breed your fake dogs, but so what if you do that as well? Honestly, this rule just shits on people who don't follow the staff rule mindset of the body of an animal being sexual.

Zalcoti
06-24-2014, 12:56 PM
I think Gamedog is forgetting about one key word here: Bestiality. Drawing anatomically correct animals doesn't automatically put someone in the weirdo animal humping category but they are out there and do draw this stuff. The thing is, nobody sane will admit to such a fetish. On websites where anthropomorphic animals are drawn (yes even what you guys call "feral" art is anthropomorphic especially if it talks and uses human expressions), it would be very difficult to convince someone it wasn't meant for sexual purposes when "human" varieties are showing their junk or are topless and so on.

Turning a nonsexual image of a dog into a slutty stripper ad doesn't help matters either. That is something not appropriate for children. One of those images linked to dA is in the mature category also, which is similar to the mature category here but I don't see Gamedog throwing a fit about but he is here? I seriously question this guy.

Term
06-24-2014, 01:49 PM
Gamedog, it comes down to this: by creating a different set of rules for ferals we're creating for ourselves potential loopholes and headaches for why we allow someone to show nipples and dongs on critters with four legs when we don't allow it for bipedal humanoid characters.

Is there something illegal about showing animal nudity? No there isn't. However, legal reasons aren't the only reasons why we may or may not want to allow or disallow certain content under a certain rating. In the case of what you're talking about, it's not an issue of the nudity being sexual but because given our rules we'd have to start creating separate rules concerning animal nudity which frankly most of us don't want to do for the reason previously mentioned. We feel ruling across the board is the only fair way to go about this.

That's pretty much the stance of the staff. Unless we're given some compelling reason why we need to allow our users to place images such as you've posted in General or Moderate this is going to be the way the staff will continue moderating the site.