Shorty said:

Shorty said:

But this brings me back to my point - are we now saying that if that was the case then a thread with 'Beastiality' as it's subject matter/in the title (or indeed swearing in titles like 'fuck', 'cunt' etc) then it's ok for younger Orgers to view those things? (and by that I mean browsing a forum and seeing such titles there - regardless of whether they do or don't click to view that particular thread). It does bother me that at times there seems to be a lot of attention-seeking through salacious or crude thread titles that could at least be edited with an appropriately placed * ie: 'f*cking thread of the year!') for the benefit of other site members. Trust me, I'm no prude by any means (MiguelGomez, Tom, DawnTreader, and HamsterHuey can all vouch for that!) and I swear as much as the next man, but I do think how a thread may be perceived before I post it - and I'm sure that goes for the majority of other members too, I think the above only applies to a small percentage of our members.

My thing is, it doesn't take anyone 2 seconds to think responsibly about what they are posting and how it may be percieved by other site users, and simply flag any threads that may contain material of a more 'adult' nature (and as mentioned before by this I mean anything that could offend someone else - it's a pretty wide spectrum, not just asses, cocks and tits). To sum it all up in a word: consideration. A little of it wouldn't go amiss.

In fact, a little of it would go a long way.

Parents are responsible for watching their kids. Not us. This isn't teletubbies.com. Consider the artist in question. Adult-themed threads are entirely appropriate here. We should not have to censor ourselves for minors. I just think that's so fucking obvious it's hardly worth saying, but apparently it's needed.

As far as 'NSFW', stating that in the title should be adequate. If people click after that, it's their own damned problem. In reality, half of the threads in the GD aren't safe for work and just loading the page could set off monitoring software. People who are worried about it shouldn't be orging at work. We are showing them a great kindness by even BOTHERING with the NSFW. The linking thing is ridiculous.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

Easy tiger.

BananaCologne said:

Wait, am I in the right forum? The one for sharing our thoughts about the site?

HereToRockYourWorld said:

You are - just thought your post came over as a little aggressive in its approach that's all. We've all managed to keep a cool head so far by having a constructive discussion - as apposed to an arguement about who's right, and who's wrong - at the end of the day it's relative and we're trying to find some middle ground here that we all agree on, right? Or is that just me?

BananaCologne said:

I am aggressive when I'm right, and I use bad language even when I ain't mad atcha.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

Riiiiight. Ok, that's that cleared up then!

BananaCologne said:

I'm glad we had this little talk.

It's not just a problem for people browsing the site at work though. Sometimes I will hop on the Org on my laptop when I'm visiting my parents, or at a coffee shop. Honestly, it's kind of embarrassing to be scrolling through a thread and a bunch of large naked or semi-naked pics appear on your screen. It looks like your browsing for porn or something, to people nearby or passing by.

Also, keep in mind, the mods sometimes have to access these threads to deal with reported posts and such.

Linking to images that are risque or perhaps offensive seems like a fair compromise IMO. Those that want to see them still can, and those that don't aren't subjected to them. Placing NSFW in the thread title, versus just linking to the images within the thread itself, limits people from joining in on the thread. It might be an interesting topic that an orger might want to read and post on, but they have to refrain from it because there's pictures on there that might get them in trouble.

At work, I use Firefox, and many times, I disable images within the browser settings just to be safe. It kind of sucks browsing the org that way, but better safe than sorry.

BananaCologne said:

there's no easy answer. but is it ok for a youngster to read a swear word or a graphic title to a thread? Yes, it's ok, they will not roll over and die from it, they will not suddenly start swearing or even know what beastiality means for that matter. Would I allow my under 12 year old to freely peruse prince.org with out my supervision? NO. So to me, it's not up to Prince.org to police us all for the sake of the children.

Ultimately what would an appropriately placed * do? would a youngster not know that "f*cking" really says "fucking"? NO, they get it. it's just like when they bleep stuff out on the radio these days...your brain still hears the curse word.

ah-ha! see, this hits the nail on the head for me. We should all use our own discretion and THINK of how a thread my be perceived, and it truly is unfortunate that some of us don't or won't but this is where making rules against things only effect the rule abiding people anyway. Those who don't care to think first won't care if there's a rule against it or not, they will do it anyway, by getting around it some how. I feel it would be better handled individually.


I agree completely.

Tom said:

Again, that is their choice; to enter or not to enter. If there is a NSFW warning in the thread title I think you should refrain from entering all together, if you are likely to be offended by women's nipples. And then I do not care where anyone is at, be it at their grandma's or in an internetshop. Who cares what other think about what you are doing?

I kinda like the fact I can watch pics, even if they are risqué. Linking, to me, seems a bit overly childish. What else is the [img] function for; just pictures of our pets?
To me the fun is being able to browse through a thread, not click links.

HamsterHuey said:

Lets say there was a thread about Jenna Jameson, and the author stuck a giant nude picture of her on the thread and "NSFW" on the title. Orgers that are browsing at work or somewhere where they might get in trouble or embarrassed can't join in on the discussion now - whereas if the pic was linked instead, they can post their thoughts about her and read the thread.

My point was, there may be some interesting discussions going on in these threads, despite the adult pics, but going the NSFW-in-the-title route excludes some people from participating altogether since they can't take the chance of opening it.

Technically, there probabbly is a way where we could hide adult pics on here from those that don't want to see them, and make them appear for those that do.

Maybe if Ben implemented two seperate [.IMG] tags, one for regular content, and perhaps a second one like [.IMGNSFW] for adult/offensive content. If orgers voluntarily used the proper tags when posting images, he could just add a setting under user preferences to automatically hide any images that use the later tag - like set the CSS property for it to "display:none".

HamsterHuey said:

i think we are stretching this conversation...we all need to keep in mind that nudity is not allowed on this site period (even with a nsfw warning)...

i think we need to keep the scope of this thread to if "suggestive" pictures are allowed or not...like the two examples you have posted above.

Since when is nudity not aloud ?

Dewrede said:

its been like that as long as i've been a mod.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

Oh me too.

Dewrede said:

Think you need to go and re-read the thread dude - nobody is saying that, we're discussing responsibility, consideration for others and where should the line be drawn - nobody is saying nudity isn't allowed.

BananaCologne said:[quote]

HereToRockYourWorld said:

look here

sosgemeni said:

[Edited 12/28/06 8:00am]

BananaCologne said:[quote]

HereToRockYourWorld said:

ahh...I think you and your fellow mod SOS need to have a sit down cause SOS is clearly saying nudity is not allowed.
and not that my opinion matters but I feel you "easy tiger" and "dude" comments are the aggressive, argumentative ones.

Tom said:

I think it's an exaggeration to say someone would be "excluded" from participating...when more appropriately they'd be excluded from participating at that particular time...but they could most certainly participate in the conversation when at home or in a more private setting.

Shorty said:

well, im willing to concede that i am wrong. thats why i've always felt that threads like these (in public) are healthy for the org.

so, lets cut naners some slack until we figure out what the mod consensus is. my understanding is that links to nudity, actual porn or violence are allowed (ala the terrorist beheading that we posted here a few years back). but posting this content directly onto the org is not allowed.

my understanding also was that NSFW warnings were needed for threads that are sexual suggestive or gross...anything in the "gray area" were a boss could interpret the content as grounds for sexual harassment. (ie, playboy bunny type posing, folks half dressed and making out. camel toe pics.)

sosgemini said:

This is exactly what I would say. And it's nice to see the open discussion on the topic.

sosgemini said:

That's what I think too.

Sweeny79 said:

so if NSFW ends up being agree upon for "nipples, ass and private parts" does that mean NSFW will be sufficient or will that mean links necessary?

A nice compromise would seem to be:
private parts, bare asses, lady nipples, graphic violence, gore and gross-out stuff get a link with a warning
provacative (sexual in nature, nearly nude, etc.) photography with everything 'covered' gets a NSFW in the thread title, but may be displayed inside a thread

Shorty said:

i think i need to clarify my original post...i snip (but keep a link) to "nipples, ass and private parts". i require an NSFW when the thread or post contains sexually suggestive or gross content...anything in the "gray area" were a boss could interpret the content as grounds for sexual harassment. (ie, playboy bunny type sexual posing, folks half dressed and making out or camel toe pics.)

CarrieMpls said:

I like that

CarrieMpls said:

i'm down with this...