PDA

View Full Version : Ratings Guidelines Feedback



Taw
05-18-2016, 07:25 PM
Welcome to our community discussion about the Ratings Guidelines! (https://www.weasyl.com/help/ratings)

The purpose of this thread is for staff to acquire feedback on possible flaws in our Ratings Guidelines, and to give users a place to speak freely about what is on their mind in regards to ratings.

Before you post here, staff is requesting that your post adheres to the Forum Rules, and the following set of guidelines we have placed in this thread:

1. Please keep in mind that this thread's purpose is to encourage an open discussion about the Ratings Guidelines- not the tagging system, Community Guidelines, etc.

2. Be respectful of staff and other users. You are free to talk about your own opinions and experiences, whether they are negative or positive, but please post them in the form of constructive criticism and avoid insulting and/or harassing content. This thread will be monitored and moderated carefully.

3. Staff cannot guarantee that every change suggested in this thread will be made to the Ratings Guidelines. However, we will be reading every post and discussing the changes with the most potential.

4. Staff will not disclose any information about action taken in an individual's gallery. Any user who disagrees with moderator action taken against their own account should send an appeal to support@weasyl.com.

This thread will be open for approximately one month, after which it will be closed and reviewed.

Thank you for reading, and we hope this thread fosters a beneficial discussion for all of us!

Axikita
05-18-2016, 08:12 PM
I would be interested in seeing the "general" and "moderate" categories combined into a single "Safe for viewers under the age of 18" category.

I feel that the divide between 18+ and safe-for-work content is pretty well established across the internet, and should be intuitive for most users. My concern is that the PG/PG13 divide is less widely used, and considerably more subjective. For example, "Must be free of any sexual conduct or themes." Is kissing sexual? What about hugging? Hugging, but touching someone's thigh? I'm not really sure. Or, what constitutes "A compositional focus on sexualized anatomy"? If a character is leaning forward in a bathing suit to get her face closer to the camera, will I be in violation of the general submission guidelines for showing off her breasts? Does it depend on the degree of foreshortening? The bust size? Where's the cutoff? The mature category is a lot more clear. Nipples showing? 18+. No nudity? SFW.

The reason this is an issue is that I've heard of users thinking they were appropriately submitting clean art, getting reprimanded by moderators who thought it should be 13+, and leaving the site. I feel that if you are going to have categories which you will be policing through moderator action, they should be clear cut and obvious to both users and staff, to avoid alienating members of the community who are making a good-faith effort to follow the rules. I feel that the divide between general and moderate is too vaguely defined, both in popular understanding and in the site rules as written, to be policeable without alienating the community. Combining them would allow for a much clearer and more intuitive category system.

As an alternative, since I'm sure some people do appreciate those categories, I would be fine with keeping the categories as guidelines, but not punishing users for improperly rating general vs moderate submissions, and limiting moderator actions to simply re-categorizing these submissions.

Hendikins
05-18-2016, 08:20 PM
I would be interested in seeing the "general" and "moderate" categories combined into a single "Safe for viewers under the age of 18" category.

I'm just going to chip in and say you're not the first person to suggest this.

Personal opinion: I wouldn't be unhappy to see the back of the Moderate rating either. There's logic to splitting artistic nudes and violence from sexually explicit material, but it's significantly harder to make a case for the Moderate rating.

Frank LeRenard
05-18-2016, 08:34 PM
It is certainly true that we have the longest discussions about what does or does not go under Moderate....

Marc
05-18-2016, 08:56 PM
I'd be in favor of a more in-depth rating system, though I'm not sure how it would work as far as programming goes. Essentially, whenever someone submits artwork, they can select an overall rating--General, Moderate, etc.--and then select what the artwork specifically portrays--such as violence/gore, sexual themes, etc. Moderate might cover artistic nudes, anything above that would be sexual in nature if not outright pornographic. Archive of our Own has a similar warning system in place.

This way, users can select what levels of each they're comfortable with in their settings. It'd essentially be a more specific SFW mode that you can customize. For example, while I'm browsing I wouldn't mind seeing gore (Moderate/Mature), but I don't like anything tremendously over-the-top (Explicit). I would make use of an option to adjust my settings to block explicit, violent works from thumbnails, etc. I also don't think that mature should mean non-sexual, and explicit should mean sexual, since I consider mature violence/nudity to be inherently different from explicit violence/nudity (think the difference between, idk, horror films and snuff films, or erotic art that leaves something to the imagination versus that which doesn't).

(I don't even know where clearly-sexual kink art that isn't QUITE sexual enough--vore, transformation, etc.--would even fall in this mix. But moving on...)

That might not be directly relevant to what you were looking for in this thread, but I figured I'd bring it up anyway. Any rating system is going to have some level of subjectivity involved, but I think allowing for more detail/customization would help bring some degree of objectivity to the matter.

Glire
05-18-2016, 09:29 PM
One thing I'm curious about is how the ratings guidelines deal with whether the acts depicted are consensual or nonconsensual.

Consider two images. On one side, you have a character in an unequivocally consensual sexual situation that everyone agrees is Moderate. On the other side, you have the exact same situation, but it's obviously nonconsensual.

Are these two images rated the same? Does a sufficiently 'small' violation of boundaries prevent a jump in rating, or should all depictions of sexual assault, no matter how minor, be rated up? In other words, is all sexual assault 'violence that is sexual in nature' for the purpose of rating a work up from moderate to mature?

If you agree that a nonconsensual situation in a work changes its rating, how do you deal with a situation in which it is not clear from the work itself whether consent has been given? Say the tags, content, or description do not provide a clue for this. Do you assume the work is depicting a consensual encounter or err on the side of rating it as if it's a nonconsensual one?

I suppose another way to put this question is, do you require explicit consent or explicit nonconsent to alter the rating of a work?

And if you do decide that explicit consent matters (a view I would strongly support), how much explicitness is required? Should works be tagged 'consensual'? Should there be a nod to consent in the description? Or in the case of disputes, should Word of God be enough, i.e. 'It's consensual because I say it is'? Or is the mere fact that you've rated a work 'moderate' enough to imply that consent is present?

IntricateVision
05-18-2016, 09:50 PM
There's a lot of fuzzy areas about what constitutes pornographic or disturbing violence. As someone mentioned above, it can get really strange when you include niche fetish.
I understand the rules were sort of lightened up at some point. But I don't see the point of Mature and Explicit as separate sections any longer. You can have porn in both now.
I was very vocal when it came to the initial separation because I didn't like my life drawing in the same category as pornography. Now it's sort of a moot point.

Instead, I'd posit that we combine the 18+ categories and allow for museum-nudity in 13+ Maybe change 13+ into 16+ ? Just having a stream of consciousness here. Having trouble articulating my thoughts lol.
I do want somewhere I can post work that has mature themes and where I can see work with mature themes and not have to see as much gore and erotica if I didn't want to. I don't know if anyone else feels the same however! And I'm sure someone could come up with something more thought out than what I got here~

Frank LeRenard
05-18-2016, 10:07 PM
One thing I'm curious about is how the ratings guidelines deal with whether the acts depicted are consensual or nonconsensual.

Consider two images. On one side, you have a character in an unequivocally consensual sexual situation that everyone agrees is Moderate. On the other side, you have the exact same situation, but it's obviously nonconsensual.

Are these two images rated the same? Does a sufficiently 'small' violation of boundaries prevent a jump in rating, or should all depictions of sexual assault, no matter how minor, be rated up? In other words, is all sexual assault 'violence that is sexual in nature' for the purpose of rating a work up from moderate to mature?

If you agree that a nonconsensual situation in a work changes its rating, how do you deal with a situation in which it is not clear from the work itself whether consent has been given? Say the tags, content, or description do not provide a clue for this. Do you assume the work is depicting a consensual encounter or err on the side of rating it as if it's a nonconsensual one?

I suppose another way to put this question is, do you require explicit consent or explicit nonconsent to alter the rating of a work?

And if you do decide that explicit consent matters (a view I would strongly support), how much explicitness is required? Should works be tagged 'consensual'? Should there be a nod to consent in the description? Or in the case of disputes, should Word of God be enough, i.e. 'It's consensual because I say it is'? Or is the mere fact that you've rated a work 'moderate' enough to imply that consent is present?

Under the current version of the Ratings Guide, the short answer is 'no, consent isn't considered regarding ratings'. It's a good point, though, that we might consider that.

Here's my initial thoughts on the matter, however: if we want to simplify the ratings system, to make it more accessible, delving into issues like 'does the sexual content in the image look consensual or not' is probably going to drive us in the opposite direction. We ran into a similar issue (from a functional perspective) with regard to "fetish" material. We removed the word "fetish" from our staff vocabulary, because we could find no way of objectively determining, 100% of the time, what constituted "fetish" material and what didn't. It all came down more or less to artist intent, which is really something only the artist can know for certain. Else it's one of those 'you know it when you see it' type of things, which are notoriously unreliable.

I would be worried that 'consent' could easily fall down a similar rabbit hole, albeit one that's not as deep. In any case, like I said, those are just my initial thoughts on the matter. It's worth discussing more.


In response to IV: just to clarify, you're saying allowing high levels of violence under Mature defeats the purpose of the Mature category? Or am I off-base?

Samael
05-18-2016, 10:46 PM
How about instead of someone externally deciding for the artist that something constitutes as mature 13+ or 18+ when its a niche or fetish thing, the artist is allowed to just straight up check a box to allow them to restrict it showing up instead of the inference that its too saucy? Like this means that if someone draws overly realistic feet, that's not a case of it being too sexual but its clearly a kink thing potentially, they can set it as tame and check the niche box.

I principally draw fat cartoons. They are not everyone's cup of tea and I am absolutely okay checking a box that restricts their accessibility to purely those who want to see them - in fact, I'd rather do that as I never wish to make people feel uncomfortable. I was a bit wounded to come off of FA and find a couple dozen of my images were retagged without any attempt at discussion. I don't do overtly sexual work and whilst I was fine with some of it being tagged, nipples were deemed offensive whether male or female and whilst I was okay with some of the more suggestive (but not actually sexual or revealing) expansion being tagged, some of it felt incredibly arbitrary.

IntricateVision
05-18-2016, 11:27 PM
In response to IV: just to clarify, you're saying allowing high levels of violence under Mature defeats the purpose of the Mature category? Or am I off-base?

A bit, yes. Explicit & Mature both allow the same level of violence via the ratings guidelines. And to clarify, I mean that Explicit and Mature should probably just be combined since other than the sexual Situations, they're functionally the same.
And I don't personally see the point in Erections and Spread Butts n' vulvas being considered 18+ Nonsexual and two figures engaging in intercourse as 18+ Sexual

The two literally only exist separately for the porn. and both Functionally contain Porn. Why not condense them into one Explicit category?
And I suppose on changing Moderate in some way, I still just want somewhere I can post non-pornographic images that isn't going to get flagged for a platonic areola lol. I've no good ideas about Moderate unfortunately.

But I hope that clarifies my opinion on Mature & Explicit! Apologies for the nonsense words in my original post XD

LawyerDog
05-18-2016, 11:29 PM
On changing the actual structure: I think going to 3 ratings is the way to go, 4 makes for way more iffy judgment calls.

On the wording of the guidelines: "NOTE: Any depictions of bodily waste must be rated as Explicit." continues to be very silly. Under this any submission that shows someone sweating technically has to be rated Explicit. Straight up stating what is not allowed would be better, I think.
Nudity's "Equivalent to Mature"s in the Explicit rating should also be changed to what it actually is, because I assume "where context is appropriately educational, documentary or artistic" no longer applies to Explicit.

Axikita
05-18-2016, 11:43 PM
Looking through some of the other responses, I feel like it's worth addressing the question of what should be handled by the ratings system, and what should be handled by the tagging system.

I feel like the rating system should be used to establish what content can legally be shown to what parties, namely, adult content versus safe-for-minors content. This is a big deal, and should be handled with appropriate recategorization by the mods and punishment for repeat offenses.

The other issue is what people want to see while they're browsing. I feel like this is the place for squeaky-clean vs pg 13 stuff, consensual versus nonconsensual, artistic nudity versus porn, fetish categories, etc. Whatever system handles this can be given more complexity, because the mods have no legal obligation to police it, and they can let miscategorizations or boundary cases slide. Putting something in the wrong category doesn’t even need to be a rules violation.

Currently, the ratings system is trying to capture both legal obligations and preferred browsing experience, which means the mods have to crack down on certain preferred-browsing issues with the same level of severity as they handle the legal-obligations violations. I feel like a solution here might be to strip the Ratings Guidelines down to the bare legal obligations, and handle the user experience stuff more casually through whatever tagging/ categorization system you use.

atsidas
05-18-2016, 11:51 PM
GENERAL: No naked breasts, genitals, sex, or violence

MATURE: Non-sexual nudity, no arousal, and mild violence

ADULT: Erotic imagery, sexual activity or arousal, blood, serious injury, strong violence, or death

bam

IntricateVision
05-19-2016, 03:38 AM
GENERAL: No naked breasts, genitals, sex, or violence

MATURE: Non-sexual nudity, no arousal, and mild violence

ADULT: Erotic imagery, sexual activity or arousal, blood, serious injury, strong violence, or death

bam


Not unopposed to this. ^

DataBank
05-19-2016, 03:52 AM
You know, my biggest issue on the ratings system is that anything other than G requires an account, period. No options for click-through make this more than a little hostile for sharing artwork with potential new users. I get "I'm not allowed to view this content" back, and a very distinct impression that's left enough of a bad taste in their mouth that they will NOT be signing up for Weasyl.

Since we're looking for feedback on the ratings, I'll focus on that. The Moderate rating's enforcement is the primary complaint I hear from artists when I ask if they're planning on posting to their Weasyl. I'd say it (combined with a lack of clickthrough age/"I want to see this" check) a major stumbling block that this site set up for itself, and gained a lot of ire from artists who would like to use the site to showcase their work but find themselves limited (by, at one time, so much as cleavage) to just the (relatively small) user base that Weasyl has. It might even take almost all of an artist's work and turn it from a public gallery to a private showing, which isn't very useful to the artist.

Regarding the Mature/Explicit divide, I'm on the fence of it. I can understand the desire to cordon off the sexual situations, maybe switch it around to mature being more of a "nudity, but not erections" thing instead of being identical except for actual intercourse. Or just combine the two so the ratings are "18+" and "General".

I think you're on the right track making things simpler, and I'll agree with earlier posters that removing the Moderate rating is a good direction. It might even cut down on the work I go through trying to convince artists to post commissions here. Hopefully.

Fiz
05-19-2016, 07:20 AM
Just replying to a few things that stood out to me:






On the wording of the guidelines: "NOTE: Any depictions of bodily waste must be rated as Explicit." continues to be very silly. Under this any submission that shows someone sweating technically has to be rated Explicit. Straight up stating what is not allowed would be better, I think.

We're actually rewording this because you're right, technically it sounds a bit silly. I vaguely remember a quote from a while back that said something like "Wait, would we get rated Explicit for exfoliating??"



And I don't personally see the point in Erections and Spread Butts n' vulvas being considered 18+ Nonsexual and two figures engaging in intercourse as 18+ Sexual

Actually, all of those examples do go into Explicit 18+ Sexual rating.

"Explicit: May contain explicit or dramatized depictions of sexual arousal, fluids, situations, content, or acts."

Sexual arousal for the erections, and spreading your private parts would count as a sexual situation or act. So yep, all of those go into Explicit.




As for the suggestion of merging Mature 18+ (non sexual) and Explicit 18+ (sexual) ratings together, I'll give a small history lesson, since not everyone is gonna know this stuff:

Early on in the sites life we originally had 3 ratings, which was General, Moderate 13+ and Explicit 18+. There was no Mature category yet, so this meant artistic nudes and outright pornography shared the same rating category. People were rightfully unhappy about that, so we split the categories and it became Mature 18+ (non sexual) for artistic nudes and Explicit 18+ (sexual) for pornography.

This is why all the "rating modifiers" (Language, Drugs, Nudity, Violence) between those two categories are exactly the same, beyond the Sexual Situations modifier. Now, it doesn't have to stay that way. I'm thinking rather than merging two ratings that were originally split for a good reason that it might be a better idea to make those modfiers (Drugs, Violence, etc.) become more different between the two categories, so they stand out as their own a bit more, though I'm not sure if that would help or just make things more confusing.




Personal opinion: I wouldn't be unhappy to see the back of the Moderate rating either. There's logic to splitting artistic nudes and violence from sexually explicit material, but it's significantly harder to make a case for the Moderate rating.

Personally not gonna disagree either, Moderate seems to be the one rating where it just makes things confusing.

Yoshimaster96
05-19-2016, 08:26 AM
This might be controversial but here goes...

I believe that there should be three categories, one allows guests to view, the second doesn't, and the third requires the user to actively change a setting. So far, so good. Now here's the controversial part...

ANYONE can change this setting. It should not check your birthday to do this.

"But, Mr. Yoshimaster, won't that mean that kids can view my explicit artwork?"

Yup. Frankly, if you are all interested, it is no longer required to shelter teens from explicit artwork, and I can provide a primary source if necessary. Honestly, any decent parent will protect their kids somewhat, or at the very least educate them, preferrably the latter, since just sheltering your kids gets them nowhere, and then they won't know what to do once they move on.

Now let me tell you a little story...

I'm 16, and I like vore. A very unfortunate combination, and my fondness to anal vore makes things over the edge. I'm rather mature for my age, I notice people misbehaving in class, I'm not afraid to do stuff about it. The teachers also semi-openly agree to this. What do I get for being more mature than average, being more intelligent than average? Nothing.

It may be equal, but it's not fair. It's also not very scientific. The concept of 18+ assumes there's something significant about age 18. There isn't. I'm not denying the trend that people who are older tend to be more mature though. Take this analogy. Say you own a bakery. You notice that less people buy bread when it's more expensive. Because of this, you set the price to $5 a loaf. Why not $4, or $6? There's nothing to suggest you couldn't. So, back to reality. Why choose 18 when you could very well choose 16 or 20? There's nothing scientific suggesting either of those options, nor the original. Plus, with no law in the way like there used to be, one could freely do such a thing.

Of course, if there must be a filter, set it so something that has evidence to back it up. For example, you could research when the brain fully develops the ability to make educated decisions regarding sexual content. Not too bad, a few Google searches could do the trick.

TL;DR Lawmakers and parents are lazy.

Noxid
05-19-2016, 08:32 AM
my personal feelings on the matter, and this is representative only of myself, are that the 13+ rating is "nice in theory but doesn't serve much purpose". In that, I set my content rating to 13+ most of the time so I see whether its is G or 13 anyway.
There may be people who restrict their rating to General specifically because they aren't comfortable with the softcore stuff so I can imagine the distinction being useful to them but at the same time its definition is ambiguous enough, not necessarily at the written level (granted I read the rating guidelines for fun) but absolutely at a cultural level because where people draw the line varies a lot depending on what they personally are used to. So for someone with a conservative upbringing it may make perfect sense but others may see it as overly restricting and feel it unfair to have their work re-rated.

I am guessing a lot of the conflict over this rating comes from the bit at the end part & so one thought I had was what if you relaxed the enforcement of G/13 but then, from the view of someone who considers the 13+ rating "valuable" (going back to what I discussed at the top) it suddenly becomes a meaningless distinction if anyone can put something in either category willy-nilly. So I'm not sure if that's the best solution either.

so basically what I spent all that saying is that I have no idea what we should do, whoops


How about instead of someone externally deciding for the artist that something constitutes as mature 13+ or 18+ when its a niche or fetish thing, the artist is allowed to just straight up check a box to allow them to restrict it showing up instead of the inference that its too saucy? Like this means that if someone draws overly realistic feet, that's not a case of it being too sexual but its clearly a kink thing potentially, they can set it as tame and check the niche box.

I principally draw fat cartoons. They are not everyone's cup of tea and I am absolutely okay checking a box that restricts their accessibility to purely those who want to see them - in fact, I'd rather do that as I never wish to make people feel uncomfortable. I was a bit wounded to come off of FA and find a couple dozen of my images were retagged without any attempt at discussion. I don't do overtly sexual work and whilst I was fine with some of it being tagged, nipples were deemed offensive whether male or female and whilst I was okay with some of the more suggestive (but not actually sexual or revealing) expansion being tagged, some of it felt incredibly arbitrary.

I dont wanna derail discussion too much bcuz this is supposed to be more about the rating system than the tagging system, but to me this sounds like a case that is actually better covered by the existing tagging and blacklist system? If the image with realistic feet is tagged "feet" or some such then it's not a problem at all for people who dislike it to avoid it by adding it to their blacklist while at the same time making it easier for those who do to search for it.

LNight
05-19-2016, 08:32 AM
This is a thing which is much more simple than you might think, for as explained above:

GENERAL: No naked breasts, genitals, sex, or violence

MATURE: Non-sexual nudity, no arousal, and mild violence

ADULT: Erotic imagery, sexual activity or arousal, blood, serious injury, strong violence, or death

It really is that simple.
No more, no less.
That is all the categories pictures should find themselves confined to, appropriate to their content.

We can also make it more simple:

General: Covers both General and Mature content, since today the standards of what is available is completely different than even ten years ago.

Adult: Stays the same.

Remove the middle man.

What you should take a look at is making tagging better and add some categories so people have the bare minimums correctly done, instead of just half-assing it so pictures someone might not wanna see pops up due to a lack of tags.

Flygon
05-19-2016, 08:46 AM
I do not have many thoughts on this. I mostly just espouse them due to a friend pushing me to. You know who you are!

I am for consolidating the ratings into GENERAL, MATURE, and ADULT as defined above.

Yes, there will still be ambiguities, and frankly, asinine and insane problems with people sexualizing things that really aren't seen as sexualized in most contexts.

But, as I have explained elsewhere, this is a furry and American culture problem. There is no solution to this that'll please a majority of users. We are a self-fearing fanbase, and North America is notoriously conservative on sexually related issues. Including otherwise non-sexualized imagery turning sexualized.

It is due to these cultural problems that accurate fanart of, say, the film Pom Poko would be rated as adult material on almost any furry site, despite agencies such as the OFLC (http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/View.aspx?ncdctx=ufskYnFdM6GrKT8NlJgdSJZ5%2bNGPLbg 2gpZ1mxChyPRPwku%2bMoOyndTF9b2Luo%252fi) rating it safe for children to watch (ie. the PG rating).

tl;dr - The ratings system, by and large, isn't the problem. It's the furry culture, much of the site's audience, and fears with the two combined that are the problem.

In addition, there still needs to be anti-asshole mechanisms anyway, due to a few rotten eggs ruining the salad.

P.S. Kirikou and the Sorceress (http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/View.aspx?ncdctx=9d4r1%252f%2bBxySULwvAjdyDz0R5A8x EhfWJYj2L9zMhgSznFisvGzKrxTNaA6aKhvkX) is rated G here. I hope you like drawn pre-colonial African child penis!

Tiger
05-19-2016, 10:09 AM
First of all- very good feedback so far! It's nice to hear ideas from different points of view. There's some interesting options that have been brought up!

I would like to make two things clear before this thread goes on further:

1. We are not going to give minors (users under the age of 18 years) access to any kind of adult material. This is a legal issue, and one that we do not want to mess around with.

2. The Mature and Explicit categories are most likely to remain separate from each other. As Fiz said, in the past they were both the same category, and this was a major issue for many people. It is very unlikely we will go back to artistic nudity and pornography being grouped together. (That being said, if you have ideas for how the wording or content allowed in each category could be changed, that is fair game and we would very much like to hear about that).

LNight
05-19-2016, 10:34 AM
First of all- very good feedback so far! It's nice to hear ideas from different points of view. There's some interesting options that have been brought up!

I would like to make two things clear before this thread goes on further:

1. We are not going to give minors (users under the age of 18 years) access to any kind of adult material. This is a legal issue, and one that we do not want to mess around with.

2. The Mature and Explicit categories are most likely to remain separate from each other. As Fiz said, in the past they were both the same category, and this was a major issue for many people. It is very unlikely we will go back to artistic nudity and pornography being grouped together. (That being said, if you have ideas for how the wording or content allowed in each category could be changed, that is fair game and we would very much like to hear about that).

I'm not sure what country Weasyl is located in.
But if you're located in America like FurAffinity.
You can have things like nudity, even with exposed genitalia, as long there's no arousal or sexual interactions, be under the mature rating without any worries of breaking the law.
FurAffinity can do just that.

Tiger
05-19-2016, 10:45 AM
I'm not sure what country Weasyl is located in.
But if you're located in America like FurAffinity.
You can have things like nudity, even with exposed genitalia, as long there's no arousal or sexual interactions, be under the mature rating without any worries of breaking the law.
FurAffinity can do just that.

Weasyl is indeed located in the USA (I believe our LLC is located in Delaware). And yes, that is exactly how it is lined up right now- nudity with no sexual content is in the Mature category. However, when I said there was a legal issue, I meant that the issue is whether or not we can give minors access to the Mature and Explicit categories. And by law, we can only give users age 18 or older access to this content. I apologize if my initial wording was unclear.

LNight
05-19-2016, 10:56 AM
Weasyl is indeed located in the USA (I believe our LLC is located in Delaware). And yes, that is exactly how it is lined up right now- nudity with no sexual content is in the Mature category. However, when I said there was a legal issue, I meant that the issue is whether or not we can give minors access to the Mature and Explicit categories. And by law, we can only give users age 18 or older access to this content. I apologize if my initial wording was unclear.

Oh yeah of course.
Everything but general should require you to have an account.
And then you should have an option to choose what you wanna see, such as:

General
General, Mature
General, Mature, Adult

Still, I think this is more complicated than it should be.

General should only contain the normal, no nudity with visible genitalia/nipples, excessive violence etc..
Mature would be things like normal nudity, no excessive gore or blood etc.
Adult contains everything.

I mean that people do not like their 'artistic nudity' being in the same category as sexual stuff is understandable, but it is absolutely stupid to make a complete separate category just for that!

Tiger
05-19-2016, 11:05 AM
Oh yeah of course.
Everything but general should require you to have an account.
And then you should have an option to choose what you wanna see, such as:

General
General, Mature
General, Mature, Adult

Still, I think this is more complicated than it should be.

General should only contain the normal, no nudity with visible genitalia/nipples, excessive violence etc..
Mature would be things like normal nudity, no excessive gore or blood etc.
Adult contains everything.

I mean that people do not like their 'artistic nudity' being in the same category as sexual stuff is understandable, but it is absolutely stupid to make a complete separate category just for that!

We do have the option to choose which ratings you want to appear on the front page and in your submission inbox. Look under "Settings" then go to "Site Preferences" and it will allow you to choose the highest maximum rating you want to see both when SFW mode is turned off, and when it is turned on.

Also, how you described the three tiers is highly similar to how the ratings work right now.

Could you possibly elaborate a little bit on why you don't think artistic nudity should not have its own category? I'm curious about your opinion as to how we could rate nudity differently.

LNight
05-19-2016, 11:32 AM
We do have the option to choose which ratings you want to appear on the front page and in your submission inbox. Look under "Settings" then go to "Site Preferences" and it will allow you to choose the highest maximum rating you want to see both when SFW mode is turned off, and when it is turned on.

Also, how you described the three tiers is highly similar to how the ratings work right now.

Could you possibly elaborate a little bit on why you don't think artistic nudity should not have its own category? I'm curious about your opinion as to how we could rate nudity differently.

I just think its weird and unnecessary, since normal nudity fits perfectly well under mature instead of adult, something it does perfectly fine other places like FA. There its perfectly acceptable to put someone who is completely nude, genitals in full view, as long they're not aroused or engaging in sexual acts, under mature.
Its fits under mature as well. Its not completely adult content, but it shouldn't be something you show to everyone either.

I don't know how else to explain it.
Its just my own opinion mostly but it also makes sense.
Either it goes under a normal adult rating, alongside any fully sexual content as it will then be considered as such, or then it goes a step below to mature along with anything else considered in between general and adult.

If its not against the TOS of the forums and with permission from one of the staff.
I would like to show three examples of how things work and fit well under the General, Mature and Adult themes.
Sadly though it will be from my own FurAffinity account the examples come from, so without an account there two of the examples as far I know, will not be visible.

Levi
05-19-2016, 12:00 PM
LNight,

I confess I'm a little confused here.


I just think its weird and unnecessary, since normal nudity fits perfectly well under mature instead of adult, something it does perfectly fine other places like FA. There its perfectly acceptable to put someone who is completely nude, genitals in full view, as long they're not aroused or engaging in sexual acts, under mature.
Its fits under mature as well. Its not completely adult content, but it shouldn't be something you show to anyone either.

I agree, and this is how our ratings system already works. Artistic nudity (no sexual content, no erection) is classified as Mature.

Depictions of sexual activity go into Explicit (our "Adult" category to borrow your terminology) already.

Since what you are suggesting is already basically how our ratings system works, could you clarify exactly what you'd like to see be different?

And yes, you can give examples as long as you clearly label NSFW links as such

Yoshimaster96
05-19-2016, 12:44 PM
It is NOT a legal issue, and I can prove it!
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/072539p.pdf

TL;DR COPA, the law you guys are discussing, was declared unconstitutional several years ago. What I suggest is that it is off by default, and any user can turn it on.

Tiger
05-19-2016, 12:51 PM
It is NOT a legal issue, and I can prove it!

If you can provide legal documentation that clearly states that it is not illegal for us to distribute adult material to minors, please do link it. Every legal document I have ever read on the issue states that it is illegal for us to distribute material such as pornographic content and nudity to minors (note: I have read this on .gov websites, which are more reliable than .com websites for looking up certain stipulations of the law).

Yoshimaster96
05-19-2016, 12:52 PM
If you can provide legal documentation that clearly states that it is not illegal for us to distribute adult material to minors, please do link it. Every legal document I have ever read on the issue states that it is illegal for us to distribute material such as pornographic content and nudity to minors (note: I have read this on .gov websites, which are more reliable than .com websites for looking up certain stipulations of the law).

Edited post with proof (also a .gov website)

Hendikins
05-19-2016, 12:57 PM
What I suggest is that it is off by default, and any user can turn it on.

We will not be making 18+ content available to unregistered users or known minors. This is not negotiable.

This discussion covers how content gets classified and possible adjustments to/removals of certain classifications.

LNight
05-19-2016, 02:50 PM
As it stands now we have General, Moderate, Mature and Explicit.

What I am proposing, is to do this:

Remove explicit.
Rename mature to adult.
Rename moderate to mature.
Make mature and adult content unavailable to anyone who does not have an account and a birth-date making them under the age of 13, which may require a bit of coding to make unavailable by default, as otherwise users and just circumvent it if they happen to use their actual birth-date.

English aren't my native tongue so I apologize if I can make things sound much more complicated than I intend... Doesn't help I at times try to sound much more clever than I actually am.

But yeah... That is basically it.
General will stay the same.
Moderate will be named mature and pretty much be the same, though combined in with a few things such as fully fledged exposed genitals if need by in nudity pictures which would as it stands now not be allowed.
While explicit will sort of be removed/combined in with the current mature, which will just be named adult where everything but things which is illegal by law such as child pornography be visible and available for anyone the age of 18+

Firehazard
05-19-2016, 05:38 PM
I appreciate the Moderate rating, to be honest, as a signifier of "stuff that might not be safe for work, depending on where you work, but isn't legally mandated to be restricted to over-18s". Stuff like fully naked characters with breasts but no nipples, for example, or just anything that's overtly "saucy" but with no nudity. But like DataBank said, there's no reason you should need an account to see that either. I could have sworn there used to be a thing you could click as a guest to enable access to Moderate submissions, but apparently not. Over on (I'm gonna get some flack for even being aware of this, and rightly so) Derpibooru, they have stuff in this category flagged as "Suggestive" with an associated stock thumbnail and you can see it with a simple clickthrough. Maybe something like that. Then people would be more inclined to rate things as Moderate and less likely to get upset if someone changes the rating for them.

Frank LeRenard
05-19-2016, 08:01 PM
Let me just illustrate some of the issues with simplifying things too much.


GENERAL: No naked breasts, genitals, sex, or violence

MATURE: Non-sexual nudity, no arousal, and mild violence

ADULT: Erotic imagery, sexual activity or arousal, blood, serious injury, strong violence, or death

So let's take the General rating described above, and let's take it as written and look at enforcement. "No violence". Worded thus, Tom and Jerry cartoons would not be suitable material for the General rating. Since they contain 'mild violence', they'd be rated Mature, and hence lumped in with full-frontal nudity. I'm going to assume most people would think that's absurd (Tom and Jerry, rated M for Mature).

Now, it's easy enough to write the rules this way, and then as staff develop an agreed-upon method of enforcement, with our own set of policies for things that frequently come up and our own more ethereal moral policy on how to deal with new issues that come up, but all of that would be completely invisible to the users, and as such there would be no accountability. I know that wouldn't be popular at all, because then every staff action would seem utterly arbitrary since it doesn't follow the written rules. The other option would be something bordering on anarchy, which would probably be slightly more popular but would still turn people off when they keep running into material that they don't want to see.

So for those reasons, I do think a little bit of specificity and carefully-chosen language helps. This is why I'm liking the idea of ditching the Moderate rating altogether and being a bit more loose with what counts as General. Because really, there's a lot less gray area for what counts as "General" or "Explicit" than what counts as "Moderate" (which is gray area by definition). If the use of the word Mature is confusing (which it is), we might rename that category as well to something incredibly clear, like "Artistic Nudity".




they have stuff in this category flagged as "Suggestive" with an associated stock thumbnail and you can see it with a simple clickthrough

Now this is an intriguing idea....

IntricateVision
05-19-2016, 10:20 PM
2. The Mature and Explicit categories are most likely to remain separate from each other. As Fiz said, in the past they were both the same category, and this was a major issue for many people. It is very unlikely we will go back to artistic nudity and pornography being grouped together. (That being said, if you have ideas for how the wording or content allowed in each category could be changed, that is fair game and we would very much like to hear about that).

@ Fiz also


I would suggest then very clear wording on what is and isn't allowed.
Like perhaps define what Explict Sexual Content means in relation to this website.

I mentioned earlier, I've gotten reports back as "No Action Taken" when there are clear and naked erections and spread open cheeks to reveal some butthole. Stuff I would have been ask to move when I modded.
I understand that there is a certain amount of Mod-Discretion, which I like, actually.
And I'm talking about maybe 4 report tops (some with subs that are no longer even there lol), but I'm still left wondering how it happened in the first place, and perhaps it's just left a little too open to interpretation there.


Thanks tho for the clarification Fiz~
Still appreciate how much effort y'all put in <3

GlaringFeline
05-19-2016, 11:44 PM
This might be controversial but here goes...Yup. Frankly, if you are all interested, it is no longer required to shelter teens from explicit artwork, and I can provide a primary source if necessary.

Can you link that source? I'm interested to read about this.




I'm 16, and I like vore. A very unfortunate combination, and my fondness to anal vore makes things over the edge. I'm rather mature for my age, I notice people misbehaving in class, I'm not afraid to do stuff about it. The teachers also semi-openly agree to this. What do I get for being more mature than average, being more intelligent than average? Nothing.

It may be equal, but it's not fair. It's also not very scientific. The concept of 18+ assumes there's something significant about age 18. There isn't. I'm not denying the trend that people who are older tend to be more mature though. Take this analogy. Say you own a bakery. You notice that less people buy bread when it's more expensive. Because of this, you set the price to $5 a loaf. Why not $4, or $6? There's nothing to suggest you couldn't. So, back to reality. Why choose 18 when you could very well choose 16 or 20? There's nothing scientific suggesting either of those options, nor the original. Plus, with no law in the way like there used to be, one could freely do such a thing.

Of course, if there must be a filter, set it so something that has evidence to back it up. For example, you could research when the brain fully develops the ability to make educated decisions regarding sexual content. Not too bad, a few Google searches could do the trick.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you said and I'm ecstatic that I'm not alone on this issue, but Weasyl has to adhere to the law. I'm 17 and the fact that the laws here in the U.S reduce minors to pets is something that's driven me to tears on multiple occasions. Hell, my age is the main thing I hate about myself and it has been since middle school. I blame the teenagers who don't act like they have a lick of common sense as the main reason why ageists justify the discrimination. I want to break down in tears just typing this out because I know the law still considers me to be my parent's property until I'm 18. It wouldn't be too farfetched to say being mature at a young age is a curse.

This isn't a debate about the law, Weasyl's rating guidelines have to adhere to the law even though I hate it with a passion. The only way to get around that is if Weasyl were to set itself up like a Chan board where you're completely anonymous but that's not gonna happen.

Uluri
05-20-2016, 12:03 AM
I'd like to state that I REALLY LIKE that Mature 18+ and Adult 18+ Separate Gore and artistic nudity from porn. I Absolutely HATE shuffling through porn to view the previous content. I can basically keep my browse rating on Mature 18+ and be comfortable at all times without fear of someone happening to look at my shoulders and see Sex all the time. Kinda mentioning something, because I saw a few folks wanting to Combine Gore into the Adult rating, and I am quite opposed to them being combined like that. Searching for art would be horrendous for me if the two were combined. I am very put off from browsing through porn to view content I enjoy viewing.

I always thought the difference between content ratings Mature and Adult were easy to understand? And very helpful for browsing around. Same goes for Moderate Rating. i really like that it exists. It also is another awesome help when browsing artwork. But I can effectively browse through General+Moderate in public without much concern of onlookers for the most part. Moderate is basically the "Should I say/do this in front of kids I'm babysitting" Category. <-- (My Impressions of the moderate Category)

The rating for Moderate and Mature for "Sexual situations" is the same. Basically Implied or Suggestive. I assume that's like "making those hand gesture" type things as lude jokes, to like Time skips in scene where "Stuff happens" -eyebrow wiggles-. The difference of the two would be if it ALSO contained content such as Nudity,Gore, ect to put it into Mature content?

Furrhan
05-20-2016, 05:39 AM
I think, as one of the users above mentioned, that it might be beneficial to sort the ratings into three categories instead of four.

The other major thing I have a problem with (and I may be a bit biased here) is this wording here:

May include incidental or comedic use of drugs such as marijuana, sativa, hallucinogens or prescription drugs.
I don't think drug use should ever be viewed or described as comedic. Drugs are destructive and dangerous. I would argue that any depictions of drug use (aside from normal use of something like aspirin if a character gets hit on the head or is hungover) should be kept to the mature or explicit ratings. A professional site in my opinion should not trivialise drug use.

I admit I am biased because I have had a friend killed in a drug-caused car accident and another friend sent to prison for manslaughter related to the same accident but regardless I believe drugs are a serious problem in society that should not be trivialised nor allowed in material viewable by young, impressionable people.

LNight
05-20-2016, 08:54 AM
Let me just illustrate some of the issues with simplifying things too much.



So let's take the General rating described above, and let's take it as written and look at enforcement. "No violence". Worded thus, Tom and Jerry cartoons would not be suitable material for the General rating. Since they contain 'mild violence', they'd be rated Mature, and hence lumped in with full-frontal nudity. I'm going to assume most people would think that's absurd (Tom and Jerry, rated M for Mature).

Now, it's easy enough to write the rules this way, and then as staff develop an agreed-upon method of enforcement, with our own set of policies for things that frequently come up and our own more ethereal moral policy on how to deal with new issues that come up, but all of that would be completely invisible to the users, and as such there would be no accountability. I know that wouldn't be popular at all, because then every staff action would seem utterly arbitrary since it doesn't follow the written rules. The other option would be something bordering on anarchy, which would probably be slightly more popular but would still turn people off when they keep running into material that they don't want to see.

So for those reasons, I do think a little bit of specificity and carefully-chosen language helps. This is why I'm liking the idea of ditching the Moderate rating altogether and being a bit more loose with what counts as General. Because really, there's a lot less gray area for what counts as "General" or "Explicit" than what counts as "Moderate" (which is gray area by definition). If the use of the word Mature is confusing (which it is), we might rename that category as well to something incredibly clear, like "Artistic Nudity".





Now this is an intriguing idea....

There is a thing as making something to simple and complicated.
You have to explain things since there can be exceptions to any rule.
The Tom and Jerry example would include a simple explanation of why that could be allowed under General despite it depicting violence.
Tom and Jerry level violence is obviously cartoonish, unlike something coming from Fight Club, which is much more on the graphic and gory violence.
It sounds to me like you're not about to really change anything, so why the purpose of this thread?
Sorry if I sound hostile, but to me right now it seems like either there will just be added more stuff to make things more complicated than they have to be, or then no changes will be done at all.
Even with proper ratings the tagging system as it is now, means content might show up to people who may not wanna see it, due to a lag of proper tagging.
A missing tag can mean someone who wants to just see porn take place in a bathroom or not, might also end up seeing Watersports and Scat when they don't wanna be anywhere near it.

Tiger
05-20-2016, 10:16 AM
There is a thing as making something to simple and complicated.
You have to explain things since there can be exceptions to any rule.
The Tom and Jerry example would include a simple explanation of why that could be allowed under General despite it depicting violence.
Tom and Jerry level violence is obviously cartoonish, unlike something coming from Fight Club, which is much more on the graphic and gory violence.
It sounds to me like you're not about to really change anything, so why the purpose of this thread?
Sorry if I sound hostile, but to me right now it seems like either there will just be added more stuff to make things more complicated than they have to be, or then no changes will be done at all.
Even with proper ratings the tagging system as it is now, means content might show up to people who may not wanna see it, due to a lag of proper tagging.
A missing tag can mean someone who wants to just see porn take place in a bathroom or not, might also end up seeing Watersports and Scat when they don't wanna be anywhere near it.

I'm sorry you feel that we're not going to make any changes. I can assure you, staff has been reading and discussing every post idea that has been brought up so far. There are some ideas that we are interested in discussing more, some that we discussed before making this thread, and some that are actually how the Ratings system already works.

We're looking for suggestions that offer a different perspective on the current Ratings policy, different wording suggestions, or suggestions on things that should be removed or added. Some of the suggestions that have been brought up are identical to how we do moderation right now, so there's really no need to go further with those, unless the suggestion offers some new ideas for us to consider. Also, a few suggestions have been tried in the past, and they didn't turn out very well for the site, so staff is hesitant to go back to the old policies for that reason.

We are very open to changing our current policy based on what users have to say, but we need new ideas or changes that will lead to discussion and possibly implementation. Also keep in mind that this thread was opened just two days ago, and it'll be open for roughly four more weeks. If activity in the thread keeps up like it has, I believe it will be very fruitful.

Boxwolf
05-20-2016, 01:59 PM
I'm not sure how popular it is but personally what has irritated me with the Mature rating is the fact that just because I would like to see nonsexual artistic nudity does not mean that I really want to have to sift through all of the other sections to the max? Is it because of detailed nudity that it is also bumped up to 18+ for legal reasons? I just wonder because I used to have my max rating to Mature but it became too cumbersome to have to sift through the rest of it sometimes (and trying to tag block only got so far) so I just bumped it back down. Don't get me wrong I love that it's separated from Explicit but sometimes I wish it matched Moderate for the rest of the sections instead, although I don't know how possible that is. Actually to be clear I don't think I'm too bothered if it has to be 18+, if it does, but the rest of it is mainly my complaint.

Also I was curious about the idea suggested of selecting why someone sets it to that rating in specific, but although it could alternatively be fixed simply with tagging, that relies on the poster to be responsible enough to do so unless they actually don't mind others doing it for them (not often).

Keep up the good work though guys, hopefully some of the discussions can help smooth out any bumps with the ratings!

subimaginati
05-20-2016, 06:14 PM
Why not consider a switch to a tag based rating system? It would allow more flexibility and searchability.

So you could have Mature: Tag: Artistic nudity. Or Mature Tag: Mild violence.

Also everyone asking for hard and fast lines? It would be nice if any site could do that but realistically nobody has ever been able to have hard and fast lines, even legal definitions of pornography come down to "I'll know it when I see it" on a judge's part. Realistically people are going to disagree on the definitions, some will have reasonable objections, some will have unreasonable ones. The only options are often whatever most people are most comfortable with and judgment calls for anything unforeseen that pops up.

Frank LeRenard
05-20-2016, 06:43 PM
There is a thing as making something to simple and complicated.
You have to explain things since there can be exceptions to any rule.
The Tom and Jerry example would include a simple explanation of why that could be allowed under General despite it depicting violence.
Tom and Jerry level violence is obviously cartoonish, unlike something coming from Fight Club, which is much more on the graphic and gory violence.
It sounds to me like you're not about to really change anything, so why the purpose of this thread?
Sorry if I sound hostile, but to me right now it seems like either there will just be added more stuff to make things more complicated than they have to be, or then no changes will be done at all.
Even with proper ratings the tagging system as it is now, means content might show up to people who may not wanna see it, due to a lag of proper tagging.
A missing tag can mean someone who wants to just see porn take place in a bathroom or not, might also end up seeing Watersports and Scat when they don't wanna be anywhere near it.

While I'm waiting for supper to cook....

Let me clarify: I agree we should simplify the current ratings guide. I did say I'm currently on board with the idea to combine Moderate and General somehow, and reduce the number of ratings to 3, for example.

I was explaining why I think it's unwise to simplify things [b]too much[\b]. I mentioned this in another thread, but there is a balance to this. Too complicated and no one will read/be able to learn the rules. Too simple and it's just a free-for-all, both in terms of how users choose to rate and how staff members choose to rate. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

ganache
05-21-2016, 12:50 AM
I don't think drug use should ever be viewed or described as comedic. Drugs are destructive and dangerous. I would argue that any depictions of drug use (aside from normal use of something like aspirin if a character gets hit on the head or is hungover) should be kept to the mature or explicit ratings. A professional site in my opinion should not trivialise drug use.

I'd like to second this sentiment somewhat. I'm put off by how easily I end up seeing casual depictions of drug use here. Things that are technically rated correctly catch me off-guard constantly because I'd been 1) running under the assumption this content would be mature (so warnings went unheeded) and 2) unaware of where in the guidelines this is actually sits (because I honestly lost track of it in all of the text trying to explain everything else).

I'm in favor of simplifying the ratings in general as others have mentioned more than anything, but bumping up the rating of this subject matter for older audiences, or at least reworking the phrasing mentioned, is something I'd prefer, too.

KarlaChan
05-21-2016, 07:09 AM
I really feel that artistic nude should be separate to the other 18+ material. I really feel annoyed that things like a topless women is in the same category as a man with an erection, and strong violence. I think there is a world of difference here. I know there are plenty of people who might want to see artistic nude, but not the other stronger content that is in the 18+ category. But anything male is fine like that, when really it is all the same tissues and there shouldn't be a difference that separates the sexes like that.

I think the "legal" issue is a pretty poor excuse if I am very honest. Since artistic nude can be seen in art galleries, and other public places with minors all the time.

I agree that anything remotely sexual should be in the 18+ category because it can be classed a pornography. Which many countries not just the USA have an over 18's only. I would even mind if the distinction was no full frontal nudity, and anything like that was in the 18+ but; things like topless or just showing the bum really is not as bad. So I would like the additional category of artistic nude that is above 13+ but not as harsh as 18+. Or at the very least even if it is 18+ it being it's own things so people can just to see that material but not stronger 18+ material.

I would also like see to art of men and women to be held to the same standard. Since I think holding the same about of nudity for different genders, to different standards is inherently wrong.

Also WTAF is the deal with holding breast milk as sexual fluid?? This if I am honest out right offends me, because it is meant to feed and nourish a child. It is not sperm. Classing it as a sexual fluid like sperm, just reminds me of the arguments against public breast feeding because men can't get their penises out. I really think things really need clearing up in that respect.

Tiger
05-21-2016, 09:42 AM
I really feel that artistic nude should be separate to the other 18+ material. I really feel annoyed that things like a topless women is in the same category as a man with an erection, and strong violence. I think there is a world of difference here. I know there are plenty of people who might want to see artistic nude, but not the other stronger content that is in the 18+ category. But anything male is fine like that, when really it is all the same tissues and there shouldn't be a difference that separates the sexes like that.

If I'm understanding this correctly- you'd prefer the nudes separated from sexually explicit content? That's actually what we've got right now for our Ratings system- the Mature category is for artistic nudity with no sexual content, and the Explicit is for anything with sexually explicit content.




I think the "legal" issue is a pretty poor excuse if I am very honest. Since artistic nude can be seen in art galleries, and other public places with minors all the time.


This is legitimately the law. (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/11/5/VII/1365) We cannot do anything to circumvent the fact that depictions of nudity or sex acts are not allowed to be distributed to minors. I don't know about any special permissions public art galleries have to follow, but it's a bit irrelevant here. At the end of the day, Weasyl, as a website, cannot distribute this kind of material to anyone known to be a minor/ (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1470) (Yes, I'm aware the second link says 16 years is the age when teens can look at this stuff; depending on location the age considered "minor" is 16, 17, or 18. Weasyl goes by 18).



I agree that anything remotely sexual should be in the 18+ category because it can be classed a pornography. Which many countries not just the USA have an over 18's only. I would even mind if the distinction was no full frontal nudity, and anything like that was in the 18+ but; things like topless or just showing the bum really is not as bad. So I would like the additional category of artistic nude that is above 13+ but not as harsh as 18+. Or at the very least even if it is 18+ it being it's own things so people can just to see that material but not stronger 18+ material.


I admit, I'm having a little bit of difficulty interpreting this part of your post. If I get anything wrong, please correct me right away. Honestly, from the sounds of what you've requested here, I feel like we already have this- a 13+ category for mild sexual content, and an 18+ for tasteful nudes, and an 18+ for sexual content. As was said previously in the thread, we are not going to be adding any categories that will allow people who are legally considered minors to access material that, by law, they are prohibited to have.




I would also like see to art of men and women to be held to the same standard. Since I think holding the same about of nudity for different genders, to different standards is inherently wrong.


Unfortunately, this is another part of our Ratings Guidelines where we are legally bound. Legally, we cannot distribute material that contains exposed mammaries to anyone under the age of 18. Unless the law changes, this is not a part of the Ratings that we will be able to change.



Also WTAF is the deal with holding breast milk as sexual fluid?? This if I am honest out right offends me, because it is meant to feed and nourish a child. It is not sperm. Classing it as a sexual fluid like sperm, just reminds me of the arguments against public breast feeding because men can't get their penises out. I really think things really need clearing up in that respect.

As the note in the Ratings Guidelines says, breast milk is not considered a sexual fluid if it is present for the feeding of an infant. However, if there is something sexual going on that is causing lactation, then we will consider it a sexual fluid.

KarlaChan
05-21-2016, 09:59 AM
If I'm understanding this correctly- you'd prefer the nudes separated from sexually explicit content? That's actually what we've got right now for our Ratings system- the Mature category is for artistic nudity with no sexual content, and the Explicit is for anything with sexually explicit content.



This is legitimately the law. (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/11/5/VII/1365) We cannot do anything to circumvent the fact that depictions of nudity or sex acts are not allowed to be distributed to minors. I don't know about any special permissions public art galleries have to follow, but it's a bit irrelevant here. At the end of the day, Weasyl, as a website, cannot distribute this kind of material to anyone known to be a minor/ (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1470) (Yes, I'm aware the second link says 16 years is the age when teens can look at this stuff; depending on location the age considered "minor" is 16, 17, or 18. Weasyl goes by 18).



I admit, I'm having a little bit of difficulty interpreting this part of your post. If I get anything wrong, please correct me right away. Honestly, from the sounds of what you've requested here, I feel like we already have this- a 13+ category for mild sexual content, and an 18+ for tasteful nudes, and an 18+ for sexual content. As was said previously in the thread, we are not going to be adding any categories that will allow people who are legally considered minors to access material that, by law, they are prohibited to have.



Unfortunately, this is another part of our Ratings Guidelines where we are legally bound. Legally, we cannot distribute material that contains exposed mammaries to anyone under the age of 18. Unless the law changes, this is not a part of the Ratings that we will be able to change.



As the note in the Ratings Guidelines says, breast milk is not considered a sexual fluid if it is present for the feeding of an infant. However, if there is something sexual going on that is causing lactation, then we will consider it a sexual fluid.

I feel that your missing my main point. I feel there is a huge difference between a mildly topless person, and some of the other stronger 18+ content. This is my issue here I want the artist nude (like nude but no presence of genitals; like the penis or vagina) separated from other 18+ content such as violence and gore.

Which is why if you are claiming it's legally binding then why are male mammaries the same rating system? Especially when we're not talking about any sexual simulation? Just the level of thing you would see in a shopping mall, or art gallery?

Other websites do actually have a 16+ rating for artistic nude. Which would be higher than 13+ but not as strong as 18+. Just I want to be able to look at tasteful nudity without seeing horrific gore and violence.

Although thanks for clearing up the breast milk issue. I think the guidelines could word that a little better though. Although a woman breastfeeding a child if she was artistic nude then it would go in 18+ any way?

Tiger
05-21-2016, 10:24 AM
I feel that your missing my main point. I feel there is a huge difference between a mildly topless person, and some of the other stronger 18+ content. This is my issue here I want the artist nude (like nude but no presence of genitals; like the penis or vagina) separated from other 18+ content such as violence and gore.

I think I'm starting to see what you mean, I apologize if my response to your first post contained an inaccurate interpretation.

So if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer that topless characters be in their own rating tier? And that any full nudity, including showing genitals, be in a separate group from topless characters? I honestly would prefer not to have a whole bunch of rating tiers for different types of nudity. That seems like it would make things more complicated to rate, and would end up making our Ratings Guidelines document longer, which many users have expressed is too long already. To me, I think it would be more effective to have any exposure of body parts that are deemed not appropriate for minors to view be in one category, then anything depicting those same body parts in sexual situations be in a different category.

I'm really sorry if I'm still misinterpreting you. If I've quoted you wrong, please feel free to correct me; I want to make sure I'm not getting anything wrong.




Which is why if you are claiming it's legally binding then why are male mammaries the same rating system? Especially when we're not talking about any sexual simulation? Just the level of thing you would see in a shopping mall, or art gallery?

I apologize for kind of sidestepping this, but I really don't feel comfortable getting into the "male vs. female" topic- we've done our best to avoid using the terms "male" and "female" in our Guidelines because those terms can cause a whole lot of problems. What our Ratings say is, any full exposure of the actual organ scientifically called a mammary is considered nudity and thus rated in the Mature category. It is a double-standard, that "male" bodies are considered fine to display topless, and "female" bodies are not considered fine to display topless, but there is nothing Weasyl can do about that. We have to follow the law; or we could be in serious trouble for it. This is something that we are simply unable to change.




Other websites do actually have a 16+ rating for artistic nude. Which would be higher than 13+ but not as strong as 18+. Just I want to be able to look at tasteful nudity without seeing horrific gore and violence.

I don't know which other websites do that, nor do I know their reason for doing that, but I can tell you that regardless of the situation of other sites, Weasyl cannot, and will not, allow anyone under the age of 18 view either artistic nudity or sexual content. I'm sorry that I am coming down so hard on this, but this is one of the things about our Ratings Guidelines that just cannot change.

Also- if you would like to block out the violence and gore in the Mature category, you could possibly try using our tag blacklisting feature. Let me know if you need any assistance with the feature, and myself or another staff member would be happy to help.



Although thanks for clearing up the breast milk issue. I think the guidelines could word that a little better though. Although a woman breastfeeding a child if she was artistic nude then it would go in 18+ any way?

That's a fair point. Do you have any suggestions for wording that could make it more clear? Also, yes, if she was nude while breastfeeding it would go into Mature 18+.

iconmaster
05-21-2016, 10:28 AM
I would support going to a two-rating system- "General" and "Adult". The only real reason we use ratings is for legal reasons, and the only real legal distinction is the one for adult material, the 18+ one.

KarlaChan
05-21-2016, 11:12 AM
I think I'm starting to see what you mean, I apologize if my response to your first post contained an inaccurate interpretation.

So if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer that topless characters be in their own rating tier? And that any full nudity, including showing genitals, be in a separate group from topless characters? I honestly would prefer not to have a whole bunch of rating tiers for different types of nudity. That seems like it would make things more complicated to rate, and would end up making our Ratings Guidelines document longer, which many users have expressed is too long already. To me, I think it would be more effective to have any exposure of body parts that are deemed not appropriate for minors to view be in one category, then anything depicting those same body parts in sexual situations be in a different category.

I'm really sorry if I'm still misinterpreting you. If I've quoted you wrong, please feel free to correct me; I want to make sure I'm not getting anything wrong.



I apologize for kind of sidestepping this, but I really don't feel comfortable getting into the "male vs. female" topic- we've done our best to avoid using the terms "male" and "female" in our Guidelines because those terms can cause a whole lot of problems. What our Ratings say is, any full exposure of the actual organ scientifically called a mammary is considered nudity and thus rated in the Mature category. It is a double-standard, that "male" bodies are considered fine to display topless, and "female" bodies are not considered fine to display topless, but there is nothing Weasyl can do about that. We have to follow the law; or we could be in serious trouble for it. This is something that we are simply unable to change.




I don't know which other websites do that, nor do I know their reason for doing that, but I can tell you that regardless of the situation of other sites, Weasyl cannot, and will not, allow anyone under the age of 18 view either artistic nudity or sexual content. I'm sorry that I am coming down so hard on this, but this is one of the things about our Ratings Guidelines that just cannot change.

Also- if you would like to block out the violence and gore in the Mature category, you could possibly try using our tag blacklisting feature. Let me know if you need any assistance with the feature, and myself or another staff member would be happy to help.



That's a fair point. Do you have any suggestions for wording that could make it more clear? Also, yes, if she was nude while breastfeeding it would go into Mature 18+.


It is the same organ for men and women to the point men can actual develop breast cancer. So that is why the wording that says that the law excludes showing mammaries is incorrect if you allow men to show theirs. Your wording is flawed, and makes the double standard worse.

Also under your current rating a man with an erected penis but not engaging in sexual activities comes in the same category as a topless artistic nude women?? How does that make sense for a rating system? How does that even compare?

Can you understand why with the edition of breast milk sometimes being a "sexual fluid" that I get the impression that this sites current guidelines heavily discriminate female bodies??

Also one extra category for artistic nude is not that complicated. It also would answer the last question. It's up to you if you want to make that 16+ or 18+ but the things I have been talking about have mainly been suggestions on what the guidelines in that category should be.

Also as for other websites DeviantArt have different maturity levels. Which is a US site so under the same law. Which allows moderate nudity to be viewed by under 18s. As long as it's not explicit like full frontal for example, but a woman simply being topless in a none sexual manner would just come under their mature warning, rather than their strict 18+.

This is why I don't get when I have brought this up in the past I get told. That's US law sorry no, we are not listening to your concerns we are being firm on this. Since other sites, art sites have a different standard on this then you currently hold.

Frank LeRenard
05-21-2016, 11:30 AM
Also under your current rating a man with an erected penis but not engaging in sexual activities comes in the same category as a topless artistic nude women??

That isn't correct. They would be rated differently.

In any case, we're being firm on this because lots of people are incredibly sensitive about what their children should be able to access, and the law can be ambiguous.

We are a small group of volunteers. We don't have the time or the resources or the desire to engage in legal battles, so we play it safe. I really hope you can understand this position, even if you personally don't find it satisfying.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so. Status update.

We've just finished another staff meeting, and are very seriously looking into the idea of dropping to a three-tiered rating system: General, Mature, and Explicit. This doesn't mean we've 100% officially decided on that course of action, so please keep arguing for alternatives if you have them, but we're currently leaning this way.

So we have a question: what all would folks like to see in each category?

The easiest thing for everyone would seem to be to merge the current General and Moderate into just General, hence allowing universal access to such things as skimpy bikinis up in your face, mild swearing, etc. Would people be on board with that?

If so, what do people think should go under Mature? We're leaning toward maintaining the distinction between artistic nudity and pornography as before, but what else might be allowed under Mature? Heavy drug use, certain amounts of violence?

Let us know, or again, let us know if you want to argue more for a better idea.

KarlaChan
05-21-2016, 12:15 PM
Nice derailment on not listening to what I'm actually explaining... Really smooth.

Noxid
05-21-2016, 12:40 PM
It is the same organ for men and women to the point men can actual develop breast cancer. So that is why the wording that says that the law excludes showing mammaries is incorrect if you allow men to show theirs. Your wording is flawed, and makes the double standard worse.

id like to point out that weasyl isn't the only site that makes this distinction. From deviantart's content policy:
http://storage2.static.itmages.com/i/16/0521/h_1463848796_7483813_50e12a39c7.png

and as well, the legal code linked earlier (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/11/5/VII/1365)
http://storage6.static.itmages.com/i/16/0521/h_1463848912_2185690_3c4ac69c26.png

I know it's kind of archaic and possibly unfair but the precedent does exist

KarlaChan
05-21-2016, 12:45 PM
But Deviantart doesn't make sure it's flagged 18+ that's my main issue. It has a moderate warning, and a strict warning for mature content.

However that is different again to anything sexually explicit since it doesn't allow any sexual explicit material at all in theory. I know stuff slips past all the time, but it's in their rules.

I really don't see the problem with an artistic nude category? Just what really is the issue with that?

Noxid
05-21-2016, 12:49 PM
I really don't see the problem with an artistic nude category? Just what really is the issue with that?

I mean we already have one don't we?
Mature is for non-sexual artistic nudity and Explicit is for sexual content. I think where we're not lining up is that our Mature category is also called 18+ and so you're arguing is it "effectively" is on the same level as Explicit, right?

KarlaChan
05-21-2016, 12:50 PM
id like to point out that weasyl isn't the only site that makes this distinction. From deviantart's content policy:
http://storage2.static.itmages.com/i/16/0521/h_1463848796_7483813_50e12a39c7.png

and as well, the legal code linked earlier (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/11/5/VII/1365)
http://storage6.static.itmages.com/i/16/0521/h_1463848912_2185690_3c4ac69c26.png

I know it's kind of archaic and possibly unfair but the precedent does exist


Sorry for the double post, I wanted to edit but it keeps trying to delete? I'm on my mobile if that makes a difference?

Any way also another big difference between Deviantart and weasyl is that Deviantart system lets you view one type of mature content while excluding another. So don't mind artist nude, but don't want to see gore, no problem.

- - - Updated - - -


I mean we already have one don't we?
Mature is for non-sexual artistic nudity and Explicit is for sexual content. I think where we're not lining up is that our Mature category is also called 18+ and so you're arguing is it "effectively" is on the same level as Explicit, right?

But haven't you been listening to my points on there is no real way to separate minor nudity with other explicit 18+ themes?

Plus you have ignored my point of other sites do have a lesser label for artistic nude.

Noxid
05-21-2016, 01:03 PM
sorry, I'm not really articulate so I can only really address one point at a time without losing focus. But I'll try to get to them.

Any way also another big difference between Deviantart and weasyl is that Deviantart system lets you view one type of mature content while excluding another. So don't mind artist nude, but don't want to see gore, no problem.

separating the components of the ratings like deviantart does would be one route but there are some challenges to that. One, we already have a lot of stuff rating on this old metric so how would we transfer those ratings to one with more categories? asking everyone to rerate their mature and explicit submissions isnt really nice. Another thought is that people are already saying our ratings are too complicated, so adding more nuances seems like it would only cause more problems.

e: oh also, as a tagging purist i'd love to say "well if you dont want to see gore use the blacklist". but i'm aware that it's not a perfect system either.

DrunkCat
05-21-2016, 01:20 PM
What our Ratings say is, any full exposure of the actual organ scientifically called a mammary is considered nudity and thus rated in the Mature category.

How about having that particular section of the ratings just be verbatim of the legal code in reference?

(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.

KarlaChan
05-21-2016, 01:24 PM
sorry, I'm not really articulate so I can only really address one point at a time without losing focus. But I'll try to get to them.


separating the components of the ratings like deviantart does would be one route but there are some challenges to that. One, we already have a lot of stuff rating on this old metric so how would we transfer those ratings to one with more categories? asking everyone to rerate their mature and explicit submissions isnt really nice. Another thought is that people are already saying our ratings are too complicated, so adding more nuances seems like it would only cause more problems.

e: oh also, as a tagging purist i'd love to say "well if you dont want to see gore use the blacklist". but i'm aware that it's not a perfect system either.

I'm aware that how Deviantart does it could be completed for this site. However it is an example of a US site, so bound to the same laws as you of a less strict nudity rating. For some types of nudity. I am asking for something that would be higher than your 13+ category, but not as firm as 18+ ideally.

However I would also understand if it had to stay 18+ but was still in its own rating to separate it from the other pretty strong 18+ content. Since I feel softer forms of nudity are out of place in that category.

I just feel that an artistic nudity option is just one editional drop down menu. That could be added to the current system. I know it would enhance my experience of this site because I do find the current rating system more than frustrating.

- - - Updated - - -


How about having that particular section of the ratings just be verbatim of the legal code in reference?

Thus bringing back why is this organ still allowed to be shown if it's a male body? That wording is a HUGE double standard. Since we are speaking scientifically, to which I have a degree in biology. Described in that way really does sound like male and female mammaries are really being counted differently.

Men can get breast cancer, and can develop lactation disorders. It is far less common but we have all the same parts in that respect.

Noxid
05-21-2016, 01:41 PM
But haven't you been listening to my points on there is no real way to separate minor nudity with other explicit 18+ themes?

Plus you have ignored my point of other sites do have a lesser label for artistic nude.

ok so, I think what the question here is is "there should be a non-18+ nudity category".or that our existing nudity category should not be restricted to those 18 years of age or older. I think the thing with this is, it's a bit of a legal and moral gray area (going back to what I said before about cultural differences) and afaik weasyl's stance on that sort of thing is to play it safe. different US states each have their own laws and regulations and it's a bit of a minefield trying to figure out "what is or isn't ok to show to what age group and who is liable etc etc".
I'll try to spend a little more time this evening to see if I can learn more about how the law works in this regard.

GlaringFeline
05-21-2016, 01:44 PM
Personally, I feel we should still have a four-tiered rating system. General itself would be family-friendly stuff and then that bars minors from being able to see anything that might be a step above that. Movies here in the U.S are rated as G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 and I think the rating system should be set up like that.

What I had in mind is General is for everyone and moderate 13+ like it already is, but turn Mature into a forewarning category and Explicit be 18+. Mature could be the stuff that isn't outright illegal for minors to see, but not something you'd show the entire family either, kinda like the Borderlands games. When you click into a mature image, it would display a warning of what's there and you have to click a button saying you want to see it and that would be separate from the tagging system; it's what dA does and as much as I hate that site, I like how it's rating system is structured.

To me, the description of a three-tiered rating system seems like it'll only allow minors to see Tom and Jerry maturity content and that's absolutely absurd considering that here in the U.S 17 year olds are allowed to purchase games like GTA and CoD.

DrunkCat
05-21-2016, 01:52 PM
Thus bringing back why is this organ still allowed to be shown if it's a male body? That wording is a HUGE double standard. Since we are speaking scientifically, to which I have a degree in biology. Described in that way really does sound like male and female mammaries are really being counted differently.

Men can get breast cancer, and can develop lactation disorders. It is far less common but we have all the same parts in that respect.

Dude, take it up with the Delware legislature. This is a DE business and has to abide by said laws. They are being counted differently, so if you feel that strongly about it send a letter to the Delware governer but keep it out of this thread. That law, as far as it concerns Weasyl, is immutable. The sooner that's accepted the sooner a solution can be found.

This is why I feel trying to shield users from that harsh reality is a detriment. It just wastes a lot of time having to get this point anyway. Bottom line: Age is a determining factor. There can be a site-level distinction between sexually explicit and simple nudity but both will have to, by default, be restricted to users 18+.

KarlaChan
05-21-2016, 03:22 PM
Dude, take it up with the Delware legislature. This is a DE business and has to abide by said laws. They are being counted differently, so if you feel that strongly about it send a letter to the Delware governer but keep it out of this thread. That law, as far as it concerns Weasyl, is immutable. The sooner that's accepted the sooner a solution can be found.

This is why I feel trying to shield users from that harsh reality is a detriment. It just wastes a lot of time having to get this point anyway. Bottom line: Age is a determining factor. There can be a site-level distinction between sexually explicit and simple nudity but both will have to, by default, be restricted to users 18+.


I doubt the law would word it so stupidly. Like honestly with law they make sure wording is sound. The wording weasyl is using is bullshit and flawed.

Plus I give up, since this has turned into an argument with no one giving a fuck about what I say. My points get brushed over with people just repeating the same stuff. Even when I give examples. I'm just repeating myself as people are ignoring when I address their points.

I think the current rating system is terrible. I thought this thread was to talk about our issues. But whatever...

I'm remembering why I forgot thus site had a forum.

GlaringFeline
05-21-2016, 03:49 PM
I doubt the law would word it so stupidly. Like honestly with law they make sure wording is sound. The wording weasyl is using is bullshit and flawed.

Not really, the law is a gray area in a few places. Example: Copyright law and what constitutes fair use; someone made a thread not too long ago about their problems with how Weasyl handles copyright and from it the staff learned that the Safe Harbor Law exists.


Plus I give up, since this has turned into an argument with no one giving a fuck about what I say. My points get brushed over with people just repeating the same stuff. Even when I give examples. I'm just repeating myself as people are ignoring when I address their points.

The staff do care about what you're saying, and I'm certain they would change it if they were legally allowed. People are repeating themselves because you're not understanding what they're saying. Is it sexist that female toplessness is not okay while male toplessness is? Very much so. Does U.S law take the standpoint that breasts are not sexual objects? That varies from state to state, some permit female toplessness and some do not so Weasyl's standpoint has to be blanket because all those exceptions would make things nearly impossible to manage. You're trying to debate the law with Weasyl's staff and it's going to be a losing battle because there are things they are legally bound to.

Some places might have special exceptions regarding nudity, but Weasyl is taking the safe route and assuming that if such an exception exists, they are not covered by it. Frank himself said that he'd prefer to avoid legal confrontations. Allowing female toplessness to minors is asking for a lawsuit from a pissed off helicopter parent. DevianTART has the resources if a legal battle were to come up for any reason and that's why they can tiptoe around and even outright ignore the law, that and they're a big site too so people will assume it's a loss to fight them anyways.


I think the current rating system is terrible. I thought this thread was to talk about our issues. But whatever...

I'm remembering why I forgot thus site had a forum.

Which is why there is a thread to discuss how the guidelines can be changed. The staff is listening to our suggestions, but there are things that Weasyl simply cannot change regardless. I don't like it at all, but it's the truth.

DrunkCat
05-21-2016, 04:10 PM
I doubt the law would word it so stupidly.

What I quoted is the law verbatim. Noxid himself has included images of that very section. Please understand that no one here has "brushed" you over. This is a very complicated topic and there exists many avenues of discussions, which can lead to arguing between two similar but distinct points that can lead to ad nuaseum discussion. Clear (and calm) communication is key.


Some places might have special exceptions regarding nudity, but Weasyl is taking the safe route and assuming that if such an exception exists, they are not covered by it.

Section k of the legal code states this exception: "Where such person is a bona fide school, museum or public library or is acting in an official capacity as an employee of such organization or as a retail outlet affiliated with and serving the educational purposes of such organization."

So Weasyl would have to get an endorsement from a school, museum or public library.

subimaginati
05-21-2016, 05:00 PM
I doubt the law would word it so stupidly. Like honestly with law they make sure wording is sound. The wording weasyl is using is bullshit and flawed.

Plus I give up, since this has turned into an argument with no one giving a fuck about what I say. My points get brushed over with people just repeating the same stuff. Even when I give examples. I'm just repeating myself as people are ignoring when I address their points.

I think the current rating system is terrible. I thought this thread was to talk about our issues. But whatever...

I'm remembering why I forgot thus site had a forum.

I get that you're frustrated, but in the last few years, the US has enacted over 800 unconstitutional restrictions on women's medical care. It has a whole plethora of laws that don't make much sense on the books including it being illegal to wear a swimsuit in Hawaii, one state made it illegal to carry an ice cream in your back pocket, and do remember that in several states it is illegal to own, buy or sell any kind of marital aid due to obscenity laws.

The US like many countries has a long and stories history of badly worded laws and just plain ridiculous ones, a badly made law will only change if someone campaigns for change or legally challenges it, an expensive and difficult procedure.

Also when you're talking about a site the size of Weasyl in comparison to say Deviantart, there's the big difference, Deviantart has the legal muscle and size that Weasyl doesn't have. Generally speaking the bigger the site, and greater the income, the more leeway the site has in terms of how much it has to protect itself. A frivolous lawsuit from somebody who thinks the internet is a babysitter and is upset that their kid saw nudity can cost a site thousands, that's a big hole in the budget for the smaller site, whereas a big site like dA with it's own lawyer on retainer can probably scare the parent off without forking out for an actual legal case.

I get it's frustrating, to be honest, as someone who has dealt with this question myself, it's annoying that often sites are covered by a patchwork of legal systems that were never created to address the very real issues the world wide web opens up, and which were created by politicians who don't understand the internet (see the new VAT law that is basically sounding a death knell to small online businesses in the EU). But all anyone who runs any site can do is to make the best judgment calls they can, and sometimes those calls come down to whether it's worth the risk verses what benefits it will bring.

In an ideal world, everyone could get what they want, but we unfortunately live in a less than ideal world in which most sites are subject to laws created by individuals who hardly use the internet and who think owning a marital aid counts as an obscenity. The staff here have to work within the system unfortunately.

Sangie
05-21-2016, 05:37 PM
To me there are two ways to go with this: simplified or more complex but clearcut.

Simplified version:
General: Non-obvious bulges, no nudity, no sex (or implied sex)
Mature: heavily outlined bulges, nudity, exposed genitals, sex, bloody violence, etc

Complex version:
General (the only under 18 category): same as above
Mature: nudity and exposed genitals. Arousal level doesn't matter in this. No boner police necessary (like FA). Besides it's rather sexist as women don't really have an obvious way to show arousal but men do.
Violence/Gore: self-explanatory
Adult: Sex things
Extreme: for instance, pain during sex, rape, inflation, vore, watersports, etc

This way people could filter out these things even if the proper tags aren't applied. See InkBunny for a solid example as they use a similar complex (but easy to understand) rating system.

Axikita
05-21-2016, 08:21 PM
We've just finished another staff meeting, and are very seriously looking into the idea of dropping to a three-tiered rating system: General, Mature, and Explicit. This doesn't mean we've 100% officially decided on that course of action, so please keep arguing for alternatives if you have them, but we're currently leaning this way.

So we have a question: what all would folks like to see in each category?


Very happy to hear this.

As for what should go in each category:

I would be in favor of a permissive general rating, that is, anything that can be rated general, should be, as other content will be off limits for minors. I understand that nudity needs to be mature for legal reasons, which makes perfect sense to me; my question is, are there legal requirements detailing what can be shown to minors in terms of violence, drug use, and vulgarity? That seems like a good place to start.

I don't have strong opinions about where the split between mature and adult is, but I feel like it's a lot more reasonable to go with conservative ratings here, since people will be free to pick what they see however you set it.



I'm also getting the impression that some people are going to be sad to see the back of the moderate/13+ rating. My question is, is there any possibility of adding something like browsing categories or suggested tags so that people can more reliably filter out content they don't want to see? I feel like the specifics would be best left to another thread, but I'm curious about the staff's opinion on reworking the browsing options to pick up the slack here.



I would also like to see fetish content specifically addressed on the ratings guidelines. My impression is that the current policy is: Rate the material as if it were not fetish content. Inflation that might be seen in a Looney Tunes cartoon can still be marked general. Fetish material does not, on its own, merit a higher rating.

I'm in favor of this policy, since everything's a kink to someone. But, this is something I've learned from reading moderators commenting in forum threads, not something that's officially stated. It's a common enough issue that I feel the official policy should be outlined somewhere in the rules.

Flygon
05-21-2016, 10:14 PM
If I can chime in for a second, if the posters here want more a more 'relaxed' legal situation, they do appear to be totally free to donate enough money to move hosting to a different country. :P

GlaringFeline
05-21-2016, 11:10 PM
I would be in favor of a permissive general rating, that is, anything that can be rated general, should be, as other content will be off limits for minors.

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you mean by this, but this sounds like you want minors to only be able to access general rating and that's really discriminatory. I understand that certain things need an age barrier because of the law, but it's ridiculous and ageist to say that minors should only be able to access cartoon violence and things of the like. I think the only things that should be limited to 18+ are things that legally have to be there, such as sex and nudity.

I have a very strong opinion on topics regarding age limits, but I'm trying to be mindful of the law in expressing my opinion because I understand that the law is beyond Weasyl's control.

Axikita
05-22-2016, 01:17 AM
Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you mean by this, but this sounds like you want minors to only be able to access general rating and that's really discriminatory. I understand that certain things need an age barrier because of the law, but it's ridiculous and ageist to say that minors should only be able to access cartoon violence and things of the like. I think the only things that should be limited to 18+ are things that legally have to be there, such as sex and nudity.

I have a very strong opinion on topics regarding age limits, but I'm trying to be mindful of the law in expressing my opinion because I understand that the law is beyond Weasyl's control.

So, to clarify: I'm saying that the General rating is the only one that minors are going to be able to access, because Mature and Adult will contain nudity and explicit sexual material that the site is not legally allowed to show minors. This isn't a suggestion, it's how the mods have said this will work.

Because that will be the only category minors can see, we should make sure that it allows as much content as legally possible. That way, minors can see all of the art that the site is allowed to show them. If we are legally allowed to show minors violence, we should rate violence as "general." if we are legally allowed to show them drug usage, we should rate drug usage as "general."

So yeah, I think you misinterpreted what I meant, I'm trying to give minors access to as much content as possible.

Tiger
05-22-2016, 06:42 AM
So, to clarify: I'm saying that the General rating is the only one that minors are going to be able to access, because Mature and Adult will contain nudity and explicit sexual material that the site is not legally allowed to show minors. This isn't a suggestion, it's how the mods have said this will work.

Because that will be the only category minors can see, we should make sure that it allows as much content as legally possible. That way, minors can see all of the art that the site is allowed to show them. If we are legally allowed to show minors violence, we should rate violence as "general." if we are legally allowed to show them drug usage, we should rate drug usage as "general."

So yeah, I think you misinterpreted what I meant, I'm trying to give minors access to as much content as possible.

This is an interesting point, and I honestly really, really like it. This sounds like a good possible direction for us to go in. (Note- I haven't spoken to any other staff about this post; so I'm only speaking my own opinion, not vouching for the rest of staff).

As far as the points you made about what content we show to minors- I'm more familiar with the "distributing works containing nudity and sexually explicit content to minors" laws, and copyright/fair use. However, I believe one of our mod directors is meeting up with two other directors and our legal expert IRL in the next few weeks. If I can, I'll get an update for you regarding what we can and can't show to minors.

atsidas
05-22-2016, 07:50 AM
GENERAL (all ages): No nudity, cartoon-style violence allowed

MODERATE (13+(or whatever)): Artistic nudity, nothing sexual, mild violence

ADULT (18+): Sexually explicit content/fetish material, drug use, gore/blood and other gratuitous violence

Frank LeRenard
05-22-2016, 09:39 AM
This is an interesting point, and I honestly really, really like it. This sounds like a good possible direction for us to go in. (Note- I haven't spoken to any other staff about this post; so I'm only speaking my own opinion, not vouching for the rest of staff).

I'll go ahead and cautiously second.

It's probably obvious by now from this thread that 'discrimination' can be a pretty big issue for Weasyl users, or hell, even just artists in general. So whatever we can easily get away with, we might try to get away with it. The question is just where exactly to draw that line.

Morality laws are such a tangled mess....



This way people could filter out these things even if the proper tags aren't applied. See InkBunny for a solid example as they use a similar complex (but easy to understand) rating system.

I already gave my opinion about over-simplified ratings, but regarding 'complex but clearcut' ratings, to my ear that almost sounds like an oxymoron? But I think I'll go pop over and check out Inkbunny's ratings system to see what you mean by this. Or if there happen to be any Inkbunny mods present in this discussion, they might comment here what their users' general impression is of it?



I would also like to see fetish content specifically addressed on the ratings guidelines.

That may be worth doing. We do still receive a lot of reports about G-rated fetish material, because some people want to see all fetish stuff marked with a higher rating. And I already explained earlier why we decided not to try to do that.

Yoshimaster96
05-22-2016, 12:21 PM
I don't get why you guys insist there's a law when I proved there wasn't, or am I missing something?

Noxid
05-22-2016, 12:41 PM
I don't get why you guys insist there's a law when I proved there wasn't, or am I missing something?

COPA is not the only obscenity and censorship law I'm pretty sure.
from https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity

Section 1470 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any individual from knowingly transferring or attempting to transfer obscene matter using the U.S. mail or any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce to a minor under 16 years of age. Convicted offenders face fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.

additionaly there may be other more specific regulations per state
but anyway, they said they'd be speaking with legal counsel later so let's see what they have to say on the matter rather than spend a lot of back and forth on it.

Flygon
05-22-2016, 09:08 PM
If I can ask the silly question, would it be possible to ask your legal counsel if the material quoted in this post (https://forums.weasyl.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?8593-Ratings-Guidelines-Feedback&p=98588&viewfull=1#post98588) would be considered obscene material in the United States?

It isn't a most directly related question to the topic at hand, but it does fill me with an incredible amount of curiosity, given the culture gap between the United States and Australia on this.

Frank LeRenard
05-22-2016, 09:42 PM
Not an expert, but I think anything containing more than trace amounts of nudity would be rated R, so the one called Kirikou could be that. Although for some probably horrible colonialist reason that I'm not going to even try to elaborate on, exceptions are made for nudity when it comes to people who live in tribal societies, so who knows. In any case, looks like that one only made it over here in a very limited way, so the MPAA never gave it a rating.

Looks like Pom Poko is rated PG, however.

DrunkCat
05-23-2016, 12:21 AM
If I can ask the silly question, would it be possible to ask your legal counsel if the material quoted in this post (https://forums.weasyl.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?8593-Ratings-Guidelines-Feedback&p=98588&viewfull=1#post98588) would be considered obscene material in the United States?

It isn't a most directly related question to the topic at hand, but it does fill me with an incredible amount of curiosity, given the culture gap between the United States and Australia on this.

It's NR in the United States.

Flygon
05-23-2016, 09:45 AM
Not at all rated in the USA, and appears to be impossible to air anyway. Then Pom Poko gets away with a PG rating.

Yet in the rest of the world, it's a frigging children's movie.

Good job, America. :alien:

Sorry for these posts... it's just baffling to me. This American cultural dissonance.

IntricateVision
05-23-2016, 04:48 PM
This is an interesting point, and I honestly really, really like it. This sounds like a good possible direction for us to go in. (Note- I haven't spoken to any other staff about this post; so I'm only speaking my own opinion, not vouching for the rest of staff).


Seconded? Thirded?

But still pushing for more comprehensive verbiage in the expectations of any rating tier that contains nudity. Otherwise we'll still see copious amounts of pr0n outside the explicit section.

@Frank LeRenard
Also hoping for clarification on complex but clearcut ratings

One of the things I like about Weasyl versus DA, is there's a lack of the "Well Technically..." Arguments.
that is something isn't technically porn because it didn't meet these 5 factors, but anyone looking at it would never show it to a child or their grandma because it's totally porn. And if possible, I'd like a site that avoids that mess while still being clear and concise


On Fetish,
I do think perhaps... I mean, I want to say it's common sense, no one draws their fetish and doesn't know it's their fetish, but I do think there's like a line where something moves from mild to more extreme.
Fetish in the classical worship sense versus a more obvious obsession/fascination that could be considered grotesque by the average viewer.
Cause I don't think all fetish work is necessarily explicit and I don't think anyone should feel punished for their kink if they wanna see it but also not necessarily have to flip through porn if they're put off by it.

Like this dude is big: http://www.popimage.com/content/images/MBQ072.jpg
Could be defined as hyper maybe, but I don't think anyone would say it's an adult image.

Axikita
05-23-2016, 11:52 PM
Glad to hear a few members of the staff are interested in going with the permissive general rating.

I also just want to mention that I'm totally in favor of having a clear cutoff, and playing it safe with what IS legal to show. I haven't proposed any specific language here because I think letting your legal staff establish the boundaries and then just revising for clarity is the right way to go. I definitely don't want the ratings allowing any legal-gray-area content. As an artist, I want to be able to trust that I'm properly protected as long as I'm following the site's guidelines.


I believe one of our mod directors is meeting up with two other directors and our legal expert IRL in the next few weeks. If I can, I'll get an update for you regarding what we can and can't show to minors.

This sounds great, I'll look forward to hearing what guidance they offer!



One of the things I like about Weasyl versus DA, is there's a lack of the "Well Technically..." Arguments.
that is something isn't technically porn because it didn't meet these 5 factors, but anyone looking at it would never show it to a child or their grandma because it's totally porn. And if possible, I'd like a site that avoids that mess while still being clear and concise


On Fetish,
I do think perhaps... I mean, I want to say it's common sense, no one draws their fetish and doesn't know it's their fetish, but I do think there's like a line where something moves from mild to more extreme.
Fetish in the classical worship sense versus a more obvious obsession/fascination that could be considered grotesque by the average viewer.
Cause I don't think all fetish work is necessarily explicit and I don't think anyone should feel punished for their kink if they wanna see it but also not necessarily have to flip through porn if they're put off by it.

Like this dude is big: http://www.popimage.com/content/images/MBQ072.jpg
Could be defined as hyper maybe, but I don't think anyone would say it's an adult image.

Regarding the fetish classification stuff, I guess my impression was that people are supposed to be able to avoid work they find grotesque or offputting via tag blacklisting.

I really like the idea of getting away from ratings based on "sexual intent" type language and focus on more concrete terms, and I like the idea of being able to classify fetish work along the same clean/mature/adult divisions so that people who like that stuff can enjoy the same control over their browsing experience. So yeah, I'm in favor of keeping the ratings policies fetish-neutral.

Though, now that I think about it, I would be really curious to also hear from your legal staff what the laws are regarding showing clean fetish content to minors. If there are legal distinctions, then it should be outlined in the ratings with the rest.

Firehazard
05-24-2016, 12:14 PM
Not at all rated in the USA, and appears to be impossible to air anyway. Then Pom Poko gets away with a PG rating.

Yet in the rest of the world, it's a frigging children's movie.

Good job, America. :alien:

Sorry for these posts... it's just baffling to me. This American cultural dissonance.
Part of the issue with comparing movie ratings is that they're not imposed by a government agency like they are in literally every other country in the world. Once upon a time, it was believed that having the government make the call on who can and can't go see a given movie would be an unacceptable intrusion on free speech or whatever, but that they probably would do it if they believed it was necessary. So the movie industry first instituted the Hays Code, which straight-up banned movies with certain content from being distributed, and eventually the G-PG-R-X ratings system (essentially the equivalent of our four levels, except that technically anyone would be allowed into a PG movie and the age cutoff was 16 — this is why I'm advocating to keep the Moderate level but make it accessible to guests).

Since then, the ratings levels and what they mean have changed (it used to be possible to have brief topless nudity in PG movies, like Airplane!), but ultimately they still have free reign over what rating they assign to what film. I'm sure there's some senator who's seething over Pom Poko getting filed under the kids section at his local Family Video, but it would take a much bigger lapse than that to land them in legal trouble. Hollywood, after all, has some of the deepest pockets of anyone in the world. Weasyl doesn't have that going for it.

Frank LeRenard
05-24-2016, 06:57 PM
...this is why I'm advocating to keep the Moderate level but make it accessible to guests.

Just a weird thought I had in response to this just now, but I wonder if it would make sense to do something like what you're advocating (a Moderate level that creates something like a thumbnail needed to view the work, but that anyone can view if they click the thumbnail), but have it be totally optional and not enforced? Like, if some people felt a need to flag their work as a courtesy, but knew it didn't merit a higher rating like Explicit. If we didn't enforce it, then the community itself would build the standard for what belongs in such a category through feedback to the artists posting the work.

I don't know. As I was typing this I was also thinking of ways that could backfire and stir heated arguments, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

DrunkCat
05-24-2016, 11:25 PM
If we didn't enforce it, then the community itself would build the standard for what belongs in such a category through feedback to the artists posting the work.

That sounds fantastic.

Makoto
05-26-2016, 07:45 AM
I'd just like to say that I'm super happy with how the mature system is right now. I personally like artistic nudity works but absolutely hate seeing the sexual and arousal stuff, so I'm ecstatic to see it actually being properly enforced now. Please, please, please leave it as it currently is.

Moderate however, I'm not entirely sure on, and I think it's confusing people since I do see nipples being listed in the category fairly frequently. I like the idea of it, but... Eh?

I'm not entirely sure where to stand on fetish things either. Sometimes there's bits, sometimes there's not. Sometimes there's arousal, sometimes there's not. It's a really strange area. If it needs to be separated, I think the best thing for it might be an on/off switch of sorts..? Something like sfw but in settings, so in the case of non-bit and non-arousal artwork it can be shown in the place it'd generally belong, but it won't be forced on anyone who doesn't want to see it. Add a check box or something during submission to sort them all out. But I dunno, just my thoughts. I'm not entirely sure how this stuff works, haha~ Sorry.

FeyPhoenix
05-26-2016, 12:48 PM
Okay, I was going to try and read through all responses here before posting, but I find myself lacking in time, so apologies if this has already been discussed.

I think the overwhelming majority of users find that the 4th category, moderate (13+), to be nice in theory but, ultimately, pointless. Especially since moderator action against infractions has been so damning.

What we should have, instead, is submission categories. IE: Fetish, Violence, Drug use, etc. and have those categories be selectable with submissions. Give people the option to filter these and, that way, people that don't want to see them can essentially blacklist them with less worry of seeing it (since many people still don't tag things correctly and then throw a fit when people edit the tags, though I see a LOT less about this than I do complaints about the ratings... a topic for a different thread)

SO! With that, you can get things like, something I saw someone reference, Tom and Jerry cartoon silly violence in general, while anything with blood/hard violence can be marked mature+violence and then guts/gore/extreme violence can be explicit+violence.

On that note:

General: No detailed nudity, genitals, sex, only 'cartoon' violence

Mature: Non-sexual nudity, no arousal, blood, violence

Explicit: Sexual activity or arousal, serious injury, strong violence, or death


With this in mind, fetishes can also be in general and mature categories, as long as fetish is selected and it does not fall into the other categories. There are certain things I think I brought up before that are arbitrary and silly in determining what makes a fetish explicit, such as a gag automatically needing an explicit rating even if the person in question is fully clothed and not engaged in sexual activities at all. Such as, for example, an anthro/human, fully clothed/covered wearing a bit and acting like a feral horse (pony play) can be completely innocent (or at the very least, non-sexual) and marked in general+fetish category, rather than the bit automatically putting it in explicit because it is, technically, a gag. Or a muzzle, just anything tied around someone's head and in their mouth.

Then, a naked, but unaroused person in the same situation: mature+fetish

Naked, aroused/engaging in sexual activity: explicit+fetish


Not sure about implementing/enforcing such a thing, but a category system like that, I think, would be really beneficial.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Or if someone gets what I am saying and can explain better/elaborate. And apologies if this has already been discussed. Literally sneaking on at work to do this because I haven't had time otherwise. x.x;

GlaringFeline
05-26-2016, 03:22 PM
I'd just like to say that I'm super happy with how the mature system is right now. I personally like artistic nudity works but absolutely hate seeing the sexual and arousal stuff, so I'm ecstatic to see it actually being properly enforced now. Please, please, please leave it as it currently is.

I like how artistic nudity and sexual nudity is separated too. However, changes to the rating system must be made because the length of the rating policy and the confusion is driving people away.


I'm not entirely sure where to stand on fetish things either. Sometimes there's bits, sometimes there's not. Sometimes there's arousal, sometimes there's not. It's a really strange area. If it needs to be separated, I think the best thing for it might be an on/off switch of sorts..? Something like sfw but in settings, so in the case of non-bit and non-arousal artwork it can be shown in the place it'd generally belong, but it won't be forced on anyone who doesn't want to see it. Add a check box or something during submission to sort them all out. But I dunno, just my thoughts. I'm not entirely sure how this stuff works, haha~ Sorry.

I like the idea of having checkboxes to tell what's in a picture that people should be aware of, and I think it'll be much easier to blacklist that kind of stuff.

Makoto
05-26-2016, 05:12 PM
I like how artistic nudity and sexual nudity is separated too. However, changes to the rating system must be made because the length of the rating policy and the confusion is driving people away.

Oh, of course! I'm not saying to not change the system at all, I'm just saying to keep the two separated as they currently are. Sorry for any confusion!


What we should have, instead, is submission categories. IE: Fetish, Violence, Drug use, etc. and have those categories be selectable with submissions. Give people the option to filter these and, that way, people that don't want to see them can essentially blacklist them with less worry of seeing it

Yes, this! But my worry is that it might just end up being ignored like tags. It might not fit well as a single category since multiple fetishes might be in one image, but as an option, you can't really force something to be selected since not every image has something that'd bother people. There could be a fetish category that brings up a list to choose from, but I feel like that might be overly complicated... But honestly, I'd probably take it regardless of how it's set up. Just my thoughts though.

Bornes
05-26-2016, 05:23 PM
On the current subject, regarding checkboxes for more descriptive ratings, that's what tags are for.

But a lot of people just don't tag correctly and in my opinion that is one of this site's downfalls.

That being said, I think if we instituted these "more descriptive ratings" as just checkboxes that say if it's fetish/etc., it would just be a better UI. Checking the box would simply add a tag to your work.
This falls in line with the 'suggested tags' and possible 'mandatory tags' that came up in the tagging discussion a while back. We need more uniform tags so the features dependent on tags (such as blacklist) are much easier to use and more dependable.

DrunkCat
05-27-2016, 01:20 AM
I know tag discussions are off-topic but I really wanted to throw in the idea of making the gallery require a minimum amount of tags for display? As a way to encourage tagging.

Flygon
05-27-2016, 07:39 AM
As a totally incidental note, having separate systems for rating Violence and Sexual Content would be pretty neat. Inkbunny does actually have this as a feature, and it works quite well.

Inkbunny achieves this by allowing you to select separate Violence and Sexual Content ratings.

Kurk2288
05-27-2016, 09:59 AM
Just some suggestions, ignore anything already covered or irrelevant. I didn't have time to read everything.

-Non registered users are restricted to general content. No exceptions. Regardless of legality. Think of the children lol? ("That's ageist" is a non-argument, and I shouldn't have to go into specifics on this)

-IF a user has incorrectly rated their content. Set future submissions uploaded by them to a higher rating by default. If their content is appropriate for a lower rating, they can manually reset it (each time) before/after submitting. (It's quite obvious that furries are extremely laxed when it comes to certain content)

-Tags/Images recommended for you, based on user browsing and settings.
Another way to encourage people to tag their content and attract a following

-Rename Mature to "Moderate" (keep it 18+ of course). To make more distinction from Explicit, i.e this is not where you put your porn. (General, Moderate, Explicit, or... General, Moderate, Mature; with Explicit becoming Mature as well).

-Nudity, exposed breasts/chests, defined/nonsexual genitalia should remain in the "new Moderate" (18+ or Mature) rating. This way artistic or anatomical nudity doesn't get lumped in with pornography.

-Erections, signs of arousal, camel toes, focusing/centering on bulges, touching or pointing to genitalia/whatever, bodily excretions/fluids, lactation, exposed rears/orifices, etc should be Explicit.

As it already is I believe?

Cartoon or minor violence, drunkenness, weapons, etc can fall under general. Any mild violence, blood/combat, drugs/usage, etc can go in the new "moderate" (18+ or Mature) rating. Gore and violent acts (including sexual kinds) of course belong in Explicit. Little note, there's going to be people lying about their age upon registering, so there's that too (good/bad).

birdXcore
05-28-2016, 10:44 PM
Overall, I believe that the content ratings here are very just and defined perfectly. There's literally no missing context or loophole on the ratings and their descriptions. If somebody has an issue with it, they need to read them again until they get it because it's just so simplified and well worded. They aren't difficult to understand at all and provide a superb balance of what can be put where so how can you go wrong with it? In fact, I don't think they should be changed at all from what they are right now.

I love how there's an option to toggle what you want to see for your personal preferences. It's not just SFW ON OR SFW OFF. It's perfect for those that don't mind seeing naked defined body parts but have an issue with sexual content itself with copious amounts of bodily fluid. Or maybe you just want to see a little less, or maybe you just want to see the Full Monty and only that.

Maybe you just like seeing really hot characters but don't want to go so far as to see their junk or literally 20 gallons of you know what all over their face...which is perfect for the Moderate 13+ rating. You can get your Victoria Secret-esque cameltoe going on and eat your cake too without feeling overly disgusted if that's the only rating that you want to go to.

Frank LeRenard
05-29-2016, 11:34 AM
On the current subject, regarding checkboxes for more descriptive ratings, that's what tags are for.

But a lot of people just don't tag correctly and in my opinion that is one of this site's downfalls.

That being said, I think if we instituted these "more descriptive ratings" as just checkboxes that say if it's fetish/etc., it would just be a better UI. Checking the box would simply add a tag to your work.
This falls in line with the 'suggested tags' and possible 'mandatory tags' that came up in the tagging discussion a while back. We need more uniform tags so the features dependent on tags (such as blacklist) are much easier to use and more dependable.

Also to FeyPhoenix.
It does sound sensible to me to have some standardized tags, and to have said tags available in a drop-down menu when submitting artwork. I don't want to talk too much about tags in this thread, however (not that it isn't worth discussing more).


And just a heads-up: I started a document to collect summarized versions of everyone's ideas so far. So as people keep posting, I will keep adding to the document. We should be able to use it as a guide for staff discussions.

Frank LeRenard
06-18-2016, 10:00 AM
Well, it looks like discussion has more or less stopped, and we're at the 18th, so this thread will now be closed and we'll get to working on revising the guidelines based on everyone's feedback.

Thanks so much to all who participated! We'll try not to take too long to get these changes made and implemented, but be aware that these may likely be fairly substantial and hence may take quite a while to hash out. We'll keep everyone posted.

Thanks again!