Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Question on specifics of NSFW and ToU "obscenity"
  • Subject: Question on specifics of NSFW and ToU "obscenity"
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Question on specifics of NSFW and ToU "obscenity"

8/5/08 Bungie Favorites- NoEnd
7/1/09 Bungie Favorites- RECON Devil
9/9/09 Bungie Favorites- Champion
5/22/10 HaloCharts Favs- Prey

If you wouldn't want your mother to know your looking at it then it's probably not okay. Heavily simplified but usually a pretty good rule to follow.

  • 12.03.2012 2:06 PM PDT

Am I doing it right, or is there too much skin for y'all?

And no, it's not an elephant: it's a klaptrap. :)

  • 12.03.2012 2:07 PM PDT

Key

Hey OP, can you please tell me why all you do whenever you make a thread on the Septagon is argue some minute detail about one thing or another and make a mountain out of a grain of dirt in a molehill? It's rather obnoxious.

The rules are specific enough that you should have a general idea of how to post and vague enough that "you have no rights" covers any area not explicitly covered in the rules that you may get banned for posting, posting about, and/or discussing.

It's not a difficult concept. Stop being difficult.

©

[Edited on 12.03.2012 2:32 PM PST]

  • 12.03.2012 2:31 PM PDT

The Forerunner, the Great Journey, and Heaven Theory

[Announcement Trailer] Halo: Forerunner

Posted by: Agustus
I lol'd at the absurd miscommunication that occurs whenever dibbs post something. Perhaps his brain is so highly evolved that he can no longer clearly communicate with lesser life forms, even among his own species.

Posted by: BobBQ
In other words, you want us to spell out what you can and can't do on this site because you can't be bothered to exercise your own faculties?

The rules have a clause that says "use common sense" for a reason.
Posted by: BobBQ
Seven bucks says the entire point of this thread is to sound for exploitable loopholes.
When people ask for clarification or want to discuss a certain nuance in regards to any other topic I rarely see them met with this kind of response. When the rules come into play, however, it seems like some moderators view any and all discussion of them as some kind of personal reproach and get needlessly defensive and abrasive.

Maybe, just maybe, people asking questions are trying to better themselves and the community. Criticism of certain aspects of the rules is not always a trolling attempt nor is it always an admonition of the moderation team and to constantly get defensive about this point and label those discussing the topic as trolls or intellectual midgets ("what's wrong - why can't you exercise 'common sense'") is insanely disrespectful (that is an admonition of the moderation which you can feel free to get defensive about). Why not try having an actual dialog instead of resorting to the same infantile talking points which inhabit every thread questioning the rule?

Also, golly gee Foman, I thought I was the only one who needed further clarification about certain rules.

  • 12.03.2012 2:36 PM PDT

Stupidity, when sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic

Posted by: Duck duck DEATH
Posted by: BobBQ
In other words, you want us to spell out what you can and can't do on this site because you can't be bothered to exercise your own faculties?
Guidelines would be helpful, but ultimately it's pointless to have rules as vague as our current set. Rules are designed to aid the posting process, and ours are posted so that users know what they can post without disrupting discussion. If rules are extremely vague, such matters are not clear and users are either forced to not post or left to the mercy of the highly subjective and moody interpretation of the moderation team. If you don't want to detail what shouldn't be posted, why post rules in the first place?

The rules have a clause that says "use common sense" for a reason.Common sense is an intrinsic perception that differs by every person and societal context. What may be "common sense" about thermodynamics might be different for others. In turn, there is no "common sense" when it comes to ethics and etiquette. There is no such thing as common sense in this case, only a misplaced belief that everyone else share's the exact same opinions to you as to what is and is not obscene or objectionable.
Common sense may be to not post a picture of a woman who is not wearing a Burqa, common sense may be to greet everyone in the forum before starting a conversation. What you're asking is impossible.
Would it really be all that bad of an idea to ban people who have such a disparate idea of common sense that they think it's okay to expose young children to -blam!- because it's not expressly prohibited by U.S law?

  • 12.03.2012 2:58 PM PDT

Whisper Game Studios - shhhh, it's a public secret.
Webcam MVP
Sarsion.net
Bnet PM Policy

[*Please note that anything in my posts is likely to be filled with sarcasm, and should be taken with a pinch of salt. I tend to help people, usually*]

If it jingles your jangles and rustles your jimmies, chances are, it's not for the kiddies.

  • 12.03.2012 3:53 PM PDT

Ach! Was ist los?

Posted by: dibbs089
Why not try having an actual dialog instead of resorting to the same infantile talking points which inhabit every thread questioning the rule?

Nowhere in my contract does it specify that I have to suffer fools gladly, nor that I have to humor them when they drag out a topic for the better part of three pages with nitpicking and goalpost moving.

I'm a janitor, not a greeter. DeeJ holds your hand and guides you across the street; I clean up the mess when you get run over.

  • 12.03.2012 5:40 PM PDT


Posted by: BobBQ
Posted by: x Foman123 x
(which you already do anyway -- all you ever post is sarcastic comments in the Community Forum... why are you so interested in this?)

Seven bucks says the entire point of this thread is to sound for exploitable loopholes.


This is how rules work. You can't have rules (any rules, be it the law, corporate policy, school behavioral guidelines) without people discussing their limits. It's just not possible.

You can make idiotic assumptions and whine all you want. I don't care about your feelings. Wah, wah, wah, you have to think. I'm going to ask all the questions I want, thanks. Because this is how rules are made, through people asking what they can or can't do and enforcers answering.

  • 12.03.2012 6:57 PM PDT

There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Forum Rules
List of Forum Ninjas

Posted by: coolmike699
This is how rules work. You can't have rules (any rules, be it the law, corporate policy, school behavioral guidelines) without people discussing their limits. It's just not possible.

You can make idiotic assumptions and whine all you want. I don't care about your feelings. Wah, wah, wah, you have to think. I'm going to ask all the questions I want, thanks. Because this is how rules are made, through people asking what they can or can't do and enforcers answering.
Here's the thing. You aren't involved in making the rules. So how they are made is not relevant. Bungie has a specific culture they are trying to create and maintain with these rules. It is their design, not a democratic process.

The rules are formatted the way they are for a few reasons. Simplicity is prefered. As Recon pointed out, we've been on the other side of his spectrum before. It was unpleasant for both sides. The community is not burdened with keeping track of all the minor subsets of rules, just a broad view of behavior. It is then up to each individual to use common sense and their own power of observation to comply. Will some people be slapped on be wrist because of this? Sure, but it's much easier on the community as a whole.

Moderators are chosen because they seem to have a grasp on the common sense Bungie is shooting for. The simplicity of the rules allows for some minor inconsistencies which are bound to arise. You cannot have total uniformity in judgement.

Please do not accuse anyone of making idiotic assumptions or whining. Neither is taking place. It is just being explained to you as clearly as possible. If this does not suffice, well then, there is always the trial and error method. That or make your own site.

  • 12.03.2012 10:21 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: BobBQ
Posted by: x Foman123 x
(which you already do anyway -- all you ever post is sarcastic comments in the Community Forum... why are you so interested in this?)

Seven bucks says the entire point of this thread is to sound for exploitable loopholes.


This is how rules work. You can't have rules (any rules, be it the law, corporate policy, school behavioral guidelines) without people discussing their limits. It's just not possible.

You can make idiotic assumptions and whine all you want. I don't care about your feelings. Wah, wah, wah, you have to think. I'm going to ask all the questions I want, thanks. Because this is how rules are made, through people asking what they can or can't do and enforcers answering.
How about you stop -blam!-ing about the rules on an internet forum and just deal with the fact that they're vague for the benefit of the moderators? Is that okay with you?

FFS, it's not that complicated to infer what they mean by common sense without getting overly picky, difficult, and/or philosophical about what exactly is "common sense" and what constitutes both "common" and "sense" respectively. At this point it's just asinine. Arguing to argue.

"Oh look the mods aren't answering the same questions they get asked by dozens of people on a daily basis and have probably answers dozens upon dozens if not hundreds of times. What a bunch of lazy whiners! How dare they!"

Grow up. I know preteens more mature than you.

e: For example: Using common sense, I can infer that "FFS" has the potential to get me warned or banned because it's technically bypassing the profanity filter. I also figured I should edit out the part about calling you a twelve year old I was originally going to post because that's considered a personal attack, and I settled for noting that I know preteens more mature than you (which I do). It's not that complicated of an idea to process.

©

[Edited on 12.03.2012 10:42 PM PST]

  • 12.03.2012 10:40 PM PDT

The Forerunner, the Great Journey, and Heaven Theory

[Announcement Trailer] Halo: Forerunner

Posted by: Agustus
I lol'd at the absurd miscommunication that occurs whenever dibbs post something. Perhaps his brain is so highly evolved that he can no longer clearly communicate with lesser life forms, even among his own species.


Posted by: BobBQ
Posted by: dibbs089
Why not try having an actual dialog instead of resorting to the same infantile talking points which inhabit every thread questioning the rule?

Nowhere in my contract does it specify that I have to suffer fools gladly, nor that I have to humor them when they drag out a topic for the better part of three pages with nitpicking and goalpost moving.

I'm a janitor, not a greeter. DeeJ holds your hand and guides you across the street; I clean up the mess when you get run over.
The beauty of the internet is that you can pretty much be whatever you choose to be. The two roles you posted aren't mutually exclusive and, for better or worse there are going to be those that look to you as a standard for proper behavior.

With that being said I'd like to address your "suffer no fools" comment. Why is it that asking for clarification of the rules earns users the label "fool", "troll", "troublemaker" or any of the other titles with negative connotations? When did legitimate curiosity become tacitly discouraged? You're the one labeling the OP a fool and addressing him with the assumption that this is all some sort of joke at the moderation team's expense designed to make them look stupid. I've made similar posts and threads and have gotten the same response. It's extremely frustrating especially when the only thing being asked for is further clarification (which, if you're punishing people for breaking these rules, should be very easy for you to put into words - it's simply your thoughts on the matter).

But you are right - you don't have to suffer nor humor fools. You also don't have to post content that disparages individuals on the assumption that they must be a troll. I'd say that doing that violates the "don't be a jerk" rule, but as this thread and many other have established, all users don't see eye to eye on the rules. Maybe we just have different interpretations on how large a breadth that rule has.

  • 12.03.2012 11:20 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

R.I.P. DeathPimp. Never Ending Respect.

"Posted by: Kickimanjaro
I'm trying to become an '04, but it's not working too well."

This is one of those things where you can't really say 'If it would offend you, don't post it.'


While you may not be offended, someone else could.
Not to mention, there are quite a few individuals who visit this site under the age of 18, so obviously pornographic imagery is a BIG no-no.

Language wise, the -blam!- filter says it all. If it's censored, obviously it's against the rules. Why? Bungie wants to keep it clean. No need for constant profanity. Outwit your opponents with sarcasm followed by a :-).

I don't know what there is to discuss about this, really.

  • 12.03.2012 11:29 PM PDT

GOAT

Posted by: Duck duck DEATH
If this remains unclear, feel free to post a link to a questionable picture. If you receive a long ban, you'll know you're over the line.I'm sure most users would prefer not to be banned. Shouldn't we have a clear standard to avoid such complications? Should bans really be the first line of clarity?


Sure. Most bans are 3 days. Nothing to severe, and then they will know.

  • 12.04.2012 12:14 AM PDT

Posted by: Enormous Corgi
Posted by: Unanimate Objec
There's no way Nate Hawbaker's favorite hero is Alan Stuart


ALAN IS A BEAUTIFUL MAN!


Posted by: x Foman123 x
If you wouldn't want your 8-year-old sister to see it, don't post it.



That seems pretty reasonable to me. I demand more laws issued upon this basis!

  • 12.04.2012 3:41 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I hope we are able to still produce the 2013 mythics calendar

  • 12.04.2012 8:22 AM PDT


Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: BobBQ
Posted by: x Foman123 x
(which you already do anyway -- all you ever post is sarcastic comments in the Community Forum... why are you so interested in this?)

Seven bucks says the entire point of this thread is to sound for exploitable loopholes.


This is how rules work. You can't have rules (any rules, be it the law, corporate policy, school behavioral guidelines) without people discussing their limits. It's just not possible.

You can make idiotic assumptions and whine all you want. I don't care about your feelings. Wah, wah, wah, you have to think. I'm going to ask all the questions I want, thanks. Because this is how rules are made, through people asking what they can or can't do and enforcers answering.
How about you stop -blam!-ing about the rules on an internet forum and just deal with the fact that they're vague for the benefit of the moderators? Is that okay with you?


I am "dealing" with them, by asking questions.

No one is making you read those questions. No one is making you respond. If you don't like it, well, too bad. As I just said, I don't care about your feelings.

  • 12.04.2012 9:13 AM PDT


Posted by: Old Papa Rich
Posted by: coolmike699
This is how rules work. You can't have rules (any rules, be it the law, corporate policy, school behavioral guidelines) without people discussing their limits. It's just not possible.

You can make idiotic assumptions and whine all you want. I don't care about your feelings. Wah, wah, wah, you have to think. I'm going to ask all the questions I want, thanks. Because this is how rules are made, through people asking what they can or can't do and enforcers answering.
Here's the thing. You aren't involved in making the rules. So how they are made is not relevant. Bungie has a specific culture they are trying to create and maintain with these rules. It is their design, not a democratic process.

The rules are formatted the way they are for a few reasons. Simplicity is prefered. As Recon pointed out, we've been on the other side of his spectrum before. It was unpleasant for both sides. The community is not burdened with keeping track of all the minor subsets of rules, just a broad view of behavior. It is then up to each individual to use common sense and their own power of observation to comply. Will some people be slapped on be wrist because of this? Sure, but it's much easier on the community as a whole.

Moderators are chosen because they seem to have a grasp on the common sense Bungie is shooting for. The simplicity of the rules allows for some minor inconsistencies which are bound to arise. You cannot have total uniformity in judgement.

Please do not accuse anyone of making idiotic assumptions or whining. Neither is taking place. It is just being explained to you as clearly as possible. If this does not suffice, well then, there is always the trial and error method. That or make your own site.


I have never asked for perfection. As I have said (and you have ignored me saying) many times, there are inconsistencies even when dealing with laws where people's freedom or even their lives are on the line. So I don't expect perfect consistency here, either.

But the mods here can be all over the place with their enforcement. People can get banned for posting things that mods themselves post. Just because I am not involved in making the rules doesn't mean that I can't question them.

Bob was assuming that we are questioning the rules not because that is how rules have been treated since the dawn of time, but because we want to exploit them. It's the online version of saying "I didn't lose that race because I didn't train as hard as my opponent. The referee likes my opponent better/ my opponent cheated/ these officials are blind" without any evidence.

  • 12.04.2012 9:22 AM PDT

When I grow up I want to be bitter and spiteful.

"i liked the reality where everything was on fire better"
-legato on remedial chaos theory

Posted by: x Foman123 x
We're not going to start citing laws or ethics codes. The rules are intentionally vague, at the mandate of our hosts. This is how they want it, and our consistent advice is to stay out of the gray areas.
I was always informed it was for readability, is it really the case that they are deliberately vague?

(which you already do anyway -- all you ever post is sarcastic comments in the Community Forum... why are you so interested in this?)I might not avoid posting in the gray area forever!

If you want a guideline as to what the gray areas are for the NSFW rule, use the same one that we've stated before in this forum: if you could see it in a PG-13 movie, it's okay. If you could only see it in an R movie, it's in the gray area. If you could only see it in an NC-17 movie, it's prohibited.I looked up the MPAA rating rules (link), and I think you might disagree with your own system. For PG-13, which you deem acceptable, it states:
A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be -blam!-ly oriented.
There's a lot of problems justifying some rule enforcement here, because it permits nudity in the condition that it is not -blam!-ly oriented. In the previous thread, nude images were deleted despite users such as elmicker claiming they were art. Considering the levels of subjectivity, perhaps you wish to adopt a different system of judgment.

Posted by: edableshoe
Alright, if you know that everyone has differing bosses, then let's go with the most stringent and tight-assed boss for this example, and call it a day.
This is a terrible idea. If we are to post by the most stingent of standards, it would make limiting us to pictures of women only in Burqas the most generous thing of all time. If anything, I would expect you to seek the most common point or perhaps a middleground instead of going to the extremely conservative point.

Posted by: BobBQ
Seven bucks says the entire point of this thread is to sound for exploitable loopholes.
Bob, if you don't like a perfectly justifiable discussion, perhaps it would be better if you kept out of it rather than resorting to ad hominem.

Posted by: True Underdog
I want to make sure that Bungie.net is a place where friendly, positive discussion can take place. It seems that most people can grasp the concept of common sense and what I mean by friendly, positive discussion. Those that get their jollies by skirting the line will either find themselves thrilled to be able to discuss their borderline naughty subjects, or they'll find themselves in time out.
While it seems correct to ban this 'naught' discussion within the confines of the rules, you seem the only person who concerns themselves with negative of those that have posted in this thread. While there are rules such as "Be nice" and "Don't be a jerk", I don't feel the subjectivity of positive ("the dress is fine, you don't look fat") and negativity ("your dog died") it worth debating because, to be fair, negativity and jerkishness doesn't seem to be enforced. If you wish to discuss the subjectivity of such rules, I am open to it; however, you seem to be the only person who cares about them, which is startling.

Posted by: About 9 Grunts
If you wouldn't want your mother to know your looking at it then it's probably not okay. Heavily simplified but usually a pretty good rule to follow.
God forbid someone here is an orphan.

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
Hey OP, can you please tell me why all you do whenever you make a thread on the Septagon is argue some minute detail about one thing or another and make a mountain out of a grain of dirt in a molehill? It's rather obnoxious.
Sorry, I just want to know. Why is everyone getting so upset by curiosity?

The rules are specific enough that you should have a general idea of how to post and vague enough that "you have no rights" covers any area not explicitly covered in the rules that you may get banned for posting, posting about, and/or discussing.But that means I could be banned for anything! How am I even expected to post then?

Posted by: SonicJohn
If it jingles your jangles and rustles your jimmies, chances are, it's not for the kiddies.
What does this even mean?

Posted by: BobBQ
Nowhere in my contract does it specify that I have to suffer fools gladly, nor that I have to humor them when they drag out a topic for the better part of three pages with nitpicking and goalpost moving.
Bob if you don't want to post then I have no desire to force you. Do not misunderstand! If this topic brings you such suffering then post no more!

Posted by: Old Papa Rich
Here's the thing. You aren't involved in making the rules. So how they are made is not relevant. Bungie has a specific culture they are trying to create and maintain with these rules. It is their design, not a democratic process.
Papa Rich do not confuse the issue! How they are made is very relevant to us! The rules are given to us and very much affect us, so to us, they and their creation is very relevant. We may not desire a democratic involvement, but if something is expected of us, we should at least understand it.

The rules are formatted the way they are for a few reasons. Simplicity is prefered. As Recon pointed out, we've been on the other side of his spectrum before. It was unpleasant for both sides. The community is not burdened with keeping track of all the minor subsets of rules, just a broad view of behavior. It is then up to each individual to use common sense and their own power of observation to comply. Will some people be slapped on be wrist because of this? Sure, but it's much easier on the community as a whole.The rules were nothing compared to a modern legal code. You claim it's benefited the community, but really this is from the standpoint of enforcement. While you may play a double role, those excluded from enforcement, and the inner workings of hfcs and the rules are left in the dark and don't feel such benefit. The rules weren't daunting, and ultimately the coloring placemat children's menu that has replaced the regular menu for the rules and the Code of Conduct is dangerous if not demeaning.

Moderators are chosen because they seem to have a grasp on the common sense Bungie is shooting for. The simplicity of the rules allows for some minor inconsistencies which are bound to arise. You cannot have total uniformity in judgement.Just because things cannot be perfect does not permit us to dismiss a chance for improvement in user-moderator relations and communication.

Please do not accuse anyone of making idiotic assumptions or whining. Neither is taking place.See: Bob's posts.
It is just being explained to you as clearly as possible.hwat
If this does not suffice, well then, there is always the trial and error method. That or make your own site.Why can't you just explain some of the judgmental process behind your bans?

Posted by: Coxx153
I hope we are able to still produce the 2013 mythics calendar
Tell me more.

  • 12.04.2012 8:20 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: BobBQ
Posted by: x Foman123 x
(which you already do anyway -- all you ever post is sarcastic comments in the Community Forum... why are you so interested in this?)

Seven bucks says the entire point of this thread is to sound for exploitable loopholes.


This is how rules work. You can't have rules (any rules, be it the law, corporate policy, school behavioral guidelines) without people discussing their limits. It's just not possible.

You can make idiotic assumptions and whine all you want. I don't care about your feelings. Wah, wah, wah, you have to think. I'm going to ask all the questions I want, thanks. Because this is how rules are made, through people asking what they can or can't do and enforcers answering.
How about you stop -blam!-ing about the rules on an internet forum and just deal with the fact that they're vague for the benefit of the moderators? Is that okay with you?


I am "dealing" with them, by asking questions.

No one is making you read those questions. No one is making you respond. If you don't like it, well, too bad. As I just said, I don't care about your feelings.
You weren't talking to me, and therefore my feelings are irrelevant so your tough guy "hardy har har I'm cool cause I don't care about your opinions" attitude is unneeded and superfluous.

Also, I'm not upset or annoyed at reading the posts, I'm saying that you should stop -blam!-ing about something that is not a big deal. If you really cannot fathom what constitutes common sense you're either being a dick about the situation or you have the rational thinking skills of a child.

©

  • 12.04.2012 9:02 PM PDT

ISU Cyclones!

Everyone knows the rules need to cover a middle ground of not too vague but not too specific. I think they're pretty good as is.

It's clear OP disagrees but the answer to him is "too bad". There is no unfairness to them so OP will have to adjust his own standards and act correctly. If you try to toe the line you risk crossing it, maybe even on accident and facing consequences.

If you claim you can't see the line then you best get some better glasses because you're a fringe opinion thinking too far to the "specific" side for the community as a whole to change to you. You'll have to change to adapt to the rules.

[Edited on 12.04.2012 9:36 PM PST]

  • 12.04.2012 9:33 PM PDT

Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: BobBQ
Posted by: x Foman123 x
(which you already do anyway -- all you ever post is sarcastic comments in the Community Forum... why are you so interested in this?)[/quote]
Seven bucks says the entire point of this thread is to sound for exploitable loopholes.


This is how rules work. You can't have rules (any rules, be it the law, corporate policy, school behavioral guidelines) without people discussing their limits. It's just not possible.

You can make idiotic assumptions and whine all you want. I don't care about your feelings. Wah, wah, wah, you have to think. I'm going to ask all the questions I want, thanks. Because this is how rules are made, through people asking what they can or can't do and enforcers answering.
How about you stop -blam!-ing about the rules on an internet forum and just deal with the fact that they're vague for the benefit of the moderators? Is that okay with you?


I am "dealing" with them, by asking questions.

No one is making you read those questions. No one is making you respond. If you don't like it, well, too bad. As I just said, I don't care about your feelings.
You weren't talking to me, and therefore my feelings are irrelevant so your tough guy "hardy har har I'm cool cause I don't care about your opinions" attitude is unneeded and superfluous.

Also, I'm not upset or annoyed at reading the posts, I'm saying that you should stop -blam!-ing about something that is not a big deal. If you really cannot fathom what constitutes common sense you're either being a dick about the situation or you have the rational thinking skills of a child.


I can call anything "not a big deal" with the right wording. I can make cancer seem like "just a bump or something" if i want to. "It's not a big deal" is bad logic. If it's such a small issue, why are you responding to me?

The problem isn't that I can't "fathom" what I'm not supposed to do. The problem is that we try, and get in trouble anyway. It's not a matter of not understanding the rules, it's a matter of the rules being so vague that anything can be against them. Now, you can continue to use ad hom attacks, or you can discuss the rules and why they are/ aren't problematic. This isn't about you or me, this isn't about your or my thinking or reasoning abilities. Those are irrelevant. This is about the rules.

  • 12.05.2012 8:29 AM PDT

There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Forum Rules
List of Forum Ninjas

Posted by: Duck duck DEATH
Posted by: coolmike699Both of you are complaining about ambiguity without offering any details yourselves. It is not productive. If you guys want an all encompassing definition that is more specific than the rules we have, you are just going to have to get used to disappointment. Without the context of specific situations, there will be no concrete answers. I have no problem with answering questions about any of the decisions I've made. I will explain every detail of why I took what I felt was appropriate action based on the specific post, thread, rule, and history of the member. I will even admit when I'm wrong.

As for the inconsitencies, moderators are human. We will make mistakes. And while we tend to be on the same page, we will not always view things identically. If you have a problem with the actions of a ninja, take it up with the individual. If that conversation isn't enough, bring it up with a master ninja. Then to DeeJ if you feel it is necessary.

  • 12.05.2012 9:50 AM PDT

This world wants to drag you down... And the weight, that guilt they want to hang around your neck, you don’t have to carry it one more step. You think they won’t let you rest, but it’s not up to them. It never was.

Posted by: Duck duck DEATH
We're talking about adult materials, not nudity in the workplace, right? I am unfamiliar with a law that prohibits viewing adult film in the workplace, or the viewing of adult films by someone under the age of 18 (not to be confused with adult films depicting someone under the age of 18). Could you tell me which federal laws these are? I would like to know.
With regards to NSFW, I'm not aware neither of a law directly prohibiting adult content being viewed at work. However I know that with my work-place the viewing of "adult material" is considered gross misconduct according to the staff-file, and is punishable by immediate dismissal.

Most other workplaces may not be as harsh on the matter, but either way "adult-content" is considered at the very least socially and morally questionable, and the organisation would rather not be associated with such practices because of their employees.

  • 12.05.2012 10:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: Duck duck DEATH
Posted by: x Foman123 x
If you want a guideline as to what the gray areas are for the NSFW rule, use the same one that we've stated before in this forum: if you could see it in a PG-13 movie, it's okay. If you could only see it in an R movie, it's in the gray area. If you could only see it in an NC-17 movie, it's prohibited.
I looked up the MPAA rating rules (link), and I think you might disagree with your own system. For PG-13, which you deem acceptable, it states:
A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be -blam!-ly oriented.
There's a lot of problems justifying some rule enforcement here, because it permits nudity in the condition that it is not -blam!-ly oriented. In the previous thread, nude images were deleted despite users such as elmicker claiming they were art. Considering the levels of subjectivity, perhaps you wish to adopt a different system of judgment.

I was not trying to get into the weeds here, but rather to give you and others something helpful to go on.

OP, this is why you need to be careful when talking about things in the abstract. It's easy to get carried away. My guideline holds accurate despite the out-of-context citation of the MPAA rules. "Art" does not equate to being "not -blam!-ly oriented." Many pieces of beautiful art are -blam!- in nature, so your example of art containing nudity being deleted is not a valid argument. On the other hand, all PG-13 movies that also contain a "nudity" label are so labeled because they show someone's nude butt or have a very brief glimpse of partial nudity in a non--blam!- situation. The bar is extremely high for the MPAA, and out of the hundreds and hundreds of movies that have received PG-13 ratings, only a few have managed to attain it with nudity in the film. And when it appears, it is very brief (no more than a few seconds), usually from behind, and non--blam!-.

Here on the forums, the bar is analogously high and the guideline remains accurate. There have been instances where nudity has been shown on these forums without receiving a ban, but like a PG-13 movie, these instances are few and far between.

You should use your best judgment, avoid the gray areas, and feel free to message a moderator if you have particular questions in a particular instance. We can't "pre-approve" your post, but we're happy to give you a general risk assessment.

You are not going to get advice any more helpful than this, and if you feel it's inadequate, you should stay well away from potentially NSFW content (like you currently do already, OP). I am not going to post any further in this thread, as I don't think I could possibly have anything else to add to what I've already said. But, as I noted before, feel free to PM me with any post- or thread-specific questions.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 12:57 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 12:30 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

ITT: people who either cannot or are unwilling to exercise good judgment.

How difficult is it just to not post nudity here? It's not as if B.net is your only outlet for that kind of thing . . .

  • 12.05.2012 12:50 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4