NSFW pictures

[El Guapo]

I think a more usual question about speech is not why should it be allowed, but why shouldn't it?

Is that where the discussion will start if I decide to start a thread where we can all share our collection of hot beheading pictures?

I'm not using the term "need" as in compulsion. I'm using it in the same vein as "what's the point?".

Of course. You're the one living in a country which prides itself on free speech. I shouldn't have to tell you this. I'm from a country that might prosecute you for hurting someone's feelings. ALL speech should start with a default "sure". If you want to make arguments for restricting specific speech on this private forum go for it. "What's the point?" isn't an argument.

Speech shouldn't need justification to exist. It should need justification to not exist. Your constitution taught me that. While your constitution is limited to government censure, the core concept is valuable in its own right.

I'm truly not trying to be a dick here, it just seems self evident that you've got this backwards. As an interesting piece of trivia, my time spent on OO is what solidified and strengthened my support of free speech in general. Some very smart people made very compelling arguments as to why speech should be by default in the "on" position.

I'm not exactly ashamed of Canada's Freedom of Expression, but I do wish we would adopt the US's stance.

edit: To clarify, this is clearly not a case of Freedom of Speech as defined in your constitution. I only mentioned it because I feel very strongly about the idea of free speech, and your 1st amendment is commendable.

I'm obviously waaaaayy behind, but just wanted to comment on this. I don't think this should be the concern. OO is our house/living room. If it is decided something isn't allowed, it should be because it isn't wanted in that setting. People are free to express themselves in other venues. We don't have to allow all forms of expression in our venue. With such a diverse group (rather than a website run by one person), I would expect the range of expressions to be larger, but far from all inclusive.

I dislike this philosophy. I'm a libertarian when it comes to the forum - people should be free to post whatever they want unless it's causing real harm. Getting community approval for acceptable discussion topics is un-american.

[El Guapo]

One or two feeling uncomfortable is a minority.

This I have a problem with. No, you cannot please everyone all the time. But justifying an action by saying, "Well, it only affects a minority so it doesn't really matter" is something else. I hope that further explanation isn't necessary.

But if you can't please everyone all the time, by definition you must accept one or two (at least) people being uncomfortable no matter which choice you make.

Not if the choice is to post an image or to not post an image. Beside, there's a difference between not pleasing someone and making someone uncomfortable.

I'm unclear about why it matters whether the post that makes people uncomfortable contains an image or not.

[Fretmute]

Here's the link. Have fun with it!

"You are not authorised to read this forum."

The intrigue deepens.

Indeed. A British person wrote that error message.

[AWS260]

[Carpet_pissr]

[LawBeefaroni]

One or two feeling uncomfortable is a minority.

This I have a problem with. No, you cannot please everyone all the time. But justifying an action by saying, "Well, it only affects a minority so it doesn't really matter" is something else. I hope that further explanation isn't necessary.

But if you can't please everyone all the time, by definition you must accept one or two (at least) people being uncomfortable no matter which choice you make.

Not if the choice is to post an image or to not post an image. Beside, there's a difference between not pleasing someone and making someone uncomfortable.

I'm unclear about why it matters whether the post that makes people uncomfortable contains an image or not.

It doesn't matter, it's just that we haven't had an outbreak of NSFW slashfic threads (thank Baldur) so images are the subject of most examples and discussions right now. However, if it clears things up, you are welcome to read my post as "Not if the choice is to post or to not post."

From a technical standpoint, as opposed to a comfort standpoint, it does matter since links/hotlinks seem to be weighted heavier than text by webfilters.

[ImLawBoy]

Our wheels turn slowly, but they do turn. My apologies for the late official response on this, but I was out of town all last week and needed some time to catch up.

While some have commented on it, we haven’t really made a big deal out of the fact that we’ve been running without a Code of Conduct for some time now. It wasn’t a conscious thing – we just lost it in a site upgrade at one point and never went back to it. It hasn’t really been a big deal, as the community has been chugging along nicely for the most part. Still, given this discussion, we thought it would be a good idea to go back to the CoC and note what we had originally said about images, nudity, and NSFW in general. Here are some snippets:

Images
Images may be posted in threads, and there is no limit to how many can appear in a post. However, images deemed inappropriate will be removed. Images containing nudity are not permitted, but an image need not contain nudity to be deemed inappropriate.

Links
Links to nudity are permitted only if the link is properly identified as such. Links to "sexual acts" are not permitted. Please label links to nudity with "NSFW" (Not Safe For Work, see below) or similar warnings. Links deemed inappropriate will be removed by forum staff.

Not Safe For Work
This phrase has become a "catch all" to mean "potentially inappropriate based on where you are viewing". That could be because a person is at work, but it could mean that person has children around. Posting it is a courtesy, but it is a critically important one. Any post or link you think might be a problem should be labled as NSFW in the title, or before the link (respectively).

A thread that fits in all the other rules and guidelines can still be NSFW. Please be mindful of the varying tastes of your fellow forum goers, and when in doubt, add a "NSFW" label. Remember - it never hurts to give your fellow OOers an appropriate warning.

Additionally, please do not post "drive by" NSFW content in a thread where it does not belong (perhaps it isn't properly labled in the thread subject, or the subject matter is such that NSFW content is inappropriate or not relevant). Your fellow OOers will greatly appreciate it.

Links to nudity must be labled NSFW.

Ignoring for the moment that we consistently misspelled “labeled”, we think the spirit of these rules still rings true. At their core, these rules were about courtesy and respect for fellow posters. That’s a good thing, and is something that almost all of us on these forums still comply with.

The additional issue not discussed in those rules is perhaps even more critical to the continued existence of OO, though. That is the “WebSense” issue. Much of the work that FishPants does from a technical perspective, and most of the time spent by staff on moderation, occurs during working hours. If this site were to get to the point where my company’s filters decide there is more “bad content” than is permissible, I’d lose 95% of my time on the site. (Some of you might be rooting for this. ) FishPants would be unable to effectively keep the site humming if he were only able to access the site during non-work hours. Much of our forum population, I suspect, is in similar straits. The more NSFW content there is, the higher the likelihood that we’ll lose OO.

With all that said, we’re not proposing any material changes to how the site is run at this time, but we will ask people to post with the “old school” NSFW rules in mind. Bare female chests, uncovered groinal pics, and bare behinds (the latter two regardless of gender) should not be shown. They may be linked, but please use an “NSFW” tag. No linking to any kind of sex act or penetration. Hiding pics behind spoiler tags may prevent someone from being caught in a “walk by” situation at work, but it doesn’t help the WebSense issue, as the user’s system will still load the image – it will just be hidden until clicked.

Also, a quick word about hotlinking images. This is another way to trigger the WebSense nannies, especially if the image file names contain certain keywords or are from sites that otherwise host questionable content. Whenever possible (and where compliant with applicable law), please make the effort to copy linked images to a personal space and link from there.

Finally, while Daehawk did nothing against the forum rules by creating a NSFW thread with content for the sake of content, we’d still like to discourage this behavior going forward. Sometimes NSFW occurs in context due to the nature of a topic, but if the whole point of the topic is to post NSFW, then we’d rather not take the potential WebSense hit.

I hope this does more to clarify than to confuse. Again, we’re not reinstating the old CoC at this time (although that’s on the table if it seems like it becomes necessary for whatever reason), but we are asking that you abide by the spirit of the old CoC and the rules we’ve mentioned here. If there are any questions, please feel free to ask.

[naednek]

From one Ken, to another,

Thanks!

[pr0ner]

Thanks for the clarification. It's muchly appreciated.

And again, I didn't start this thread because of the NSFW thread itself, but because of a certain picture that was posted in it. It's good to have clarification so that particular type of picture doesn't wind up here again (though the further discussion of NSFW threads, on their own, is great for helping keep OO viable during the workday).

[Zaxxon]

Thanks, Ken. You say words lot good.

(and where compliant with applicable law)

[pr0ner]

That image is amazing, Zaxxon.

[GreenGoo]

Kudos on the use of the word "groinal".

[Chaosraven]

So we're clear, a topical NSFW is ok, but a general is not?

[KKBlue]

Thank you ImLaw, for the write up appreciate it.

[dbt1949]

Websense. Does I have it?

[naednek]

Websense. Does I have it?

If you're just at home and not working, probably not

[LawBeefaroni]

So we're clear, a topical NSFW is ok, but a general is not?

Creating threads solely for the purpose of posting/gathering NSFW images is "discouraged" as noted in ILB's post. Because of the potential websense issues, it's preferred that we not tap the cage, so to speak. Is one NSFW thread going to cause n users to get blocked? Don't know. Is two? Five? We'd rather not find out.

[El Guapo]

So I take it that the NSFW Round Robin thread is no longer permissible?

[LawBeefaroni]

So I take it that the NSFW Round Robin thread is no longer permissible?

Is that the one that involves a competition or voting or something similar?

[El Guapo]

So I take it that the NSFW Round Robin thread is no longer permissible?

Is that the one that involves a competition or voting or something similar?

Yeah, it hasn't been around in awhile but that's the one where everyone would post one NSFW picture of some famous person, everyone would vote, and the winner would then pick the next person to post NSFW pictures of.

[Smoove_B]

I would think - maybe. It's done as a game, which is a mitigating factor. The biggest knock against it would be the aforementioned hotlinked images that either contain descriptive names or are direct links to known red-flag sites.