[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/arch/ - Ponyville municipal archive

Nice threads of days past
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.2728[View All]

File: 1538490585331.png (285.68 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Coy Celestia.png) ImgOps Google

Good morning, my little ponies! I'm very pleased to announce the results of our PACTA vote. I think you will find the results to be very consistent with your expectations!

Charts will be provided as well, but for now, here is the vote tally.

I. The Rules Board
PASSED - 95%y to 5%n

II. Hoofbook
PASSED - 100% yay

III. SFW Switch
PASSED - 75%y - 25%n

IV. Penalty Policy Revisions
PASSED - 95%y - 5%n

V. Order of Bans
ITERATION 2 - PASSED, 80%y - 20%n

VI. Report Escalation
FAILED - 50%y - 50%n (requires majority)

VII. Revised Rules Behavior Generally
PASSED - 83.3%y - 16.7%n

VII./1 Rule 1
PASSED - 100%y

VII./2 Rule 2
PASSED - 100%y

VII./3 Rule 3
PASSED - 100%y

VII./4 Rule 4
PASSED - 77.8%y - 22.2%n

VII./5 Rule 5
PASSED - 100%y

VII./6 Rule 6
VERSION 2/PASSED - 83.3%y - 16.7%n

VII./7 Rule 7
PASSED - 94.7%y - 5.3%n

VII./8 Rule 8
PASSED - 90%y - 10%n

VII./9 Rule 9
PASSED - 100%y

VII./10 Rule 10
PASSED - 100%y

VII./11 Rule 11
PASSED - 95%y - 5%n

VII./12 Rule 12
PASSED - 100%y

VIII. Revised Adult Content Generally
PASSED - 88.9%y - 11.1%n

VIII./1 Rule 1
Version 2/PASSED - 95%y - 5%n

VIII./2 Rule 2
Version 2/PASSED - 89.5%y to 10.5%n

VIII./3 Rule 3
Version 3/PASSED - 78.9%y to 21.1%n

VIII./4 Rule 4
PASSED - 95%y - 5%n
672 posts and 334 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.3401

>>3400
Yes and no. So on a personal level I like and am for the idea of "we must treat all sexuality as equal". I think that is an admirable thing. But that means we must include pedophilia in there. And I'm OK with that personally, if we are going to go down the path of equality and fairness. I can ignore things I don't want to see, whatever.

But at the same time, from a site wide perspective, since not many people want to see pedophilic content on the site, maybe a very pure stance on sexuality is not the best idea for this site. And so we should be looking towards some sort of middle ground. And that middle ground doesn't need to exclude lizards with leashes or diapers or anything else. Just that a completely pure fairness and consistency isn't a solution that will jive with much of the community, because most people are not ok with the sexualization of children, even in a sfw context. I guess that's the point I'm trying to make, clumsily.

 No.3402

File: 1538831178580.png (160.82 KB, 394x311, 394:311, FEEEEEEEEEEELLS.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3401
Fair enough. Seems to me like we had started not really understanding enough about eachother's positions to comment.
Personally, I don't really care for getting rid of the content unless it's outright explicit, or exploitative.
But, then, my ideal is stuff like 8/tg/, where there's hardly any real rules outside of no spam or major off topic postings, and of course illegal content. I prefer ultimately more user freedom, on the whole. It's what has made that particular board one of my favorites, and a place I spend a lot of my spare time.

As far as our own community, here, I'd still say we need to examine the why we're enforcing these rules.
As much as I'd love to just tell people who're unhappy with some things to "toughen up", I imagine that's not really productive. So, I'd just prefer if everyone's discomfort of various items was listened to, instead.

 No.3403

File: 1538831193238.png (236.38 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Fluttershy_sad_S01E22.png) ImgOps Google

>>3387
i understand, and i am glad to talk on this as a result. The principles, i mean.

At the end of the day, we do have to put the hoof down somewhere though.

When the NSFW filter comes up, the expectation is that the staff won't have to make too many judgment calls, as the safe zone will be massively expanded

That said, while i can get that all sexuality has some degree of equitt, i also feel that there is a time and place for expression of sexuality.

A fetish of being naked all the time is not appropriate in the courtroom. Certain fetishes, we cannot abide by here either.


Noonim, if i adopt either of your variations of the rules, all is okay, or nothing is okay, we will have substantial userbase loss. The current community isn't for these policies. You put me between a rock and a hard place, and i am trying to conede as much as i can to your argument without throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you know?


What if we allow diaper stuff under the NSFW filter once it is up?

That is the farthest we can push things, i think

 No.3404

File: 1538831518337.png (268.43 KB, 437x494, 23:26, 5.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3403
Truth be told, I never really much spend time caring for the community of any particular place, as ultimately, I find that the community wants and desires whatever is available to them.
The community on, for instance, 8chan, might desire heavily user freedom, over all else, and that comes as a direct result ultimately of how much freedom the users have and have had.
I'm of the opinion a community reflects the place you've built, most of the time, and really, rarely the other way around.

But, I understand what you're getting at.
My goal here is more around simple fairness.
If we're enforcing off of what makes people uncomfortable, we shouldn't write off a minority who find some things uncomfortable.
And of course, this still assumes the complaint to the content as currently stands are the majority.

 No.3405

File: 1538832136376.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>3404
Ponyville, ultimately, was founded on safety, kindness, and the notion of an involved and caring staff.

Liberty is a personal belief i have injected into the site, as i feel free society is happy and stable society. That, and we are all, in a sense, refugees from an old home.

Unlike much of the imageboard world, with CD shoulder moderators and arbitrary lightning from Olympus decision-making, we wanted to be different.

We started the site with a vision of what the community would be: it is not like what i imagine 8chan to be. Thus, we must abide by the community.

The current rule is accepting of fetish. Leash lizard, in all its discussed iterations, is fine. Diapers, we can decide on a case by case basis, as with other sexual stuff, and i promise we won't just hit it like we used to, but focus only on the things that need administrative action, lest they disturb the community.

i believe deeply in the notions of fairness. Life is not fair, but it doesn't mean Ponyville must be so either.

...still there is just only so far i can go.

How would you feel about what I've proposed above?

 No.3406

File: 1538832341231.png (80.02 KB, 300x298, 150:149, 7.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3405
Like I said earlier, I never really cared all that much about the image in particular, beyond mild annoyance at it being removed but a completely naked lady with only hair covering tits being okay, anyway.

My entire issue here is that I feel like the principle at hand is only applied to an assumed majority's concern.
That is to say, we're having things that make some people uncomfortable removed, but not others.

 No.3407

File: 1538833402007.png (236.38 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Fluttershy_sad_S01E22.png) ImgOps Google

>>3406
i think the position of the staff is, how can we be as fair as possible without scaring off a quarter of the userbase?

i might not find diapers or what not very comfortable... But i don't find almost anything sexual to be comfortable.

For me, all of this is an exercise in trying to be fair. i can stand it. But not everyone can, and i just cannot tell them to go and find a new home for the sake of being fair to this contentious content

 No.3408

For this reason, i hope you can understand! :c

 No.3409

File: 1538841056938.jpg (200.12 KB, 750x750, 1:1, BT5kwko.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3342
>Just to reiterate, Moony, I don't feel you have any concept of what people actually versed in fetishes consider to be extreme.
I'd say that how a fetish image is seen by the person with the fetish is largely irrelevant.  (Someone with the fetish won't be grossed out and scared away from this website by such a fetish image.)  Rather, what's important is how someone without the fetish views the image.  If a typical person without the fetish feels repulsed by the image, then that is a good reason for such images not to be posted on the site.

>Diapers are the tamest thing I can think of
As mentioned earlier (>>3324), diapers aren't really a good fit for the fetish rule, and it was probably a mistake to categorize them under this rule.

I'd suggest dropping the fetish rule entirely and making a rule like "Don't post images that you know disgust typical people".  Of course, different people have different ideas of what would disgust typical people, but a common standard can be developed on an ongoing thread on /rules/, with additional clarification of the boundaries added as the need arises.  And no punishment for posting an image would be dished out unless the poster had already been notified by the mods that images like that are verboten.  

>>3342
>it is unsurprising that this is interpreted to mean lostpony wants to wallow in his own shit.  
No, this is not how people interpret it.  Everyone in this thread knows what the image means to you.  Nobody believes that you want to wallow in your own shit.  But the image still provokes a visceral reaction of shit-wallowing (despite knowing that this isn't your intention), and this visceral reaction is really discomforting.  Please try to understand that most people have a much different reaction to the diaper images than you have, and this reaction is not under people's conscious control.

 No.3410

File: 1538842356287.png (49.37 KB, 543x404, 543:404, I didn't realize you were ….png) ImgOps Google

>>3399
>Pedophilia is an attraction towards children. That's it. There is nothing in there about raping or molesting or any other actions.

Yeah, technically, but like some of the other stuff we've discussed in the thread it carries those associations anyway.

 No.3411

>>3410
Yeah sure, but I'm trying to make an argument here using the most sterile and clinical use of these words, so I go out and say things in defense of pedophilia and pedophiles from that perspective (because it's just an attraction, nothing more) and when you come in talking about it being all heinous and shit, what does that leave me as a person trying to defend it from that clinical pov?

I'm mean, I'll tell you, leaves me a sick mess, somewhere between wanting to cry and throw up. Cry because these people didn't do anything to deserve that label. Mere attraction is not a crime worthy of such scorn. I can't imagine how someone who found themselves with that attraction, but is just a normal person with a normal moral compass who would never hurt anybody let alone children, how they must feel perpetually being labeled a monster. It seriously breaks my heart thinking about it.

Then I feel like throwing up, because if that's the kind of thing people can't help but invoke when thinking about pedophilia, and I'm in here in the guts of it saying that they are not bad people (until they commit an actual crime, you know, the standard we hold everyone else to), then what does that mean people think of me? Just that I'm pro hurting children? I just don't want anybody to have to hurt because of something they never really had control over, their sexuality. That's, not so unreasonable, I think.

 No.3412

File: 1538844710246.png (286.58 KB, 527x600, 527:600, Silverstream8.png) ImgOps Google

>>3409
I always figured diapers were ok with the rules all this time as long as there was nothing super weird going on with the picture, otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to even post screenshots from the show. No screenshots showing baby ponies, the Baby Cakes, no Pinkie accidentally putting a diaper on herself trying to change the Baby Cakes, no Flurry Heart. I had no idea there was this big anti diaper crusade going on.

 No.3413

File: 1538845905151.png (47.65 KB, 559x493, 559:493, A feeling of flight.png) ImgOps Google

>>3411
>Just that I'm pro hurting children?

Man, I work in a middle school.  There isn't an employee there that isn't pro hurting children.  All we do is laugh as they constantly injure themselves.  Sometimes we prepare them for the future so they succeed, but sometimes we set them up for failure to amuse ourselves.  Every time you see a kid running in the hall, it's just another opportunity to trip them so you can say "I told you so."

Truthfully, I have nothing against pedophiles, because you're right that they aren't automatically rapists anymore than people with any other attraction is.  But it's the same thing as jumping to a nazi comparison, people are going to take offense to that because of the strong associations.  Those associations are something you could try to fix in a PSA or something, but not necessarily here and now.

>>3412

Diapers are ruining the environment!  Just let your kids wander the woods and piss on trees like they were meant to.

 No.3414

File: 1538846267617.gif (456.5 KB, 600x573, 200:191, yuukocry.gif) ImgOps Google

this argument is still going on? :c

i think perhaps no real agreement is possible to reach in this case that works for everyone..
we are trying to make rules to keep from driving people from the site and make people comfortable and i understand the importance of that..
but if anything, i have been avoiding the site lately due to this very discussion. it is exhausting and silly to me that so much importance is placed on this. is it really such an offense to not be able to post a handful of images that were already being reported before this change that we have had multiple weeks of arguing in some of the longest threads the site has had? :c
it must be important to people to have such discussion.. but i just cannot wrap my head around it..  

 No.3415

File: 1538846307947.png (1.14 MB, 1000x1399, 1000:1399, 1507423744995.png) ImgOps Google

>>3412
The issue is specifically depictions of adults wearing nothing but a diaper.  That provokes a negative reaction in most people, for reasons discussed above in this thread.  Some contexts (e.g., "Pinkie accidentally putting a diaper on herself trying to change the Baby Cakes", as you say) might avert this negative reaction.  But posting it without such a context tends to provoke negative reaction.

 No.3416

>>3413
Sure, whatever. It isn't that I think you are wrong, I know how this conversation goes pretty much every time. Making the mistake of bringing it up here and now was the mistake I chose to make, because it's that important to me. And frankly, it went way less bad than I think it could have been. I'm done now, before the stress of this conversation kills me. If boat responds again, he can assume I'm not gonna budge an inch on whatever I've been arguing and that if his cause is that all sexuality should be treated fairly and equally, that he better mean it and not just pay lip service to it.

 No.3417

File: 1538847866545.png (36.69 KB, 412x382, 206:191, I have no idea.png) ImgOps Google

>>3416

I do apologize for stressing you out so much, that certainly wasn't my intention and I don't think you've really done anything wrong here.

 No.3418

>>3377
i will note that animated porngraphy of underage individuals is not legal: just not often enforced. But i believe there.are some major precedent decisions where people received substantial jail time for possession.

>>3412
It's not those pictures per-se, it is diaper images that are sexualized/fetishisized

 No.3419

>>3398  What Noonim said.  I take way more issue with the naked girls than I do with diapers.  I'm willing to put up with the naked girls.
>>3399  I'm well aware of what pedophilia means.  The discussion has been, from the very beginning, about posting images.  When you say pedophilia, in a context of images relating to pedophilia, the obvious thing that comes up is child pornography.  You need to give me some idea of what you mean by pedophilia-related-image-that-isn't-child-pornography because I have no idea what you're trying to say - so we can have an actual discussion.  Just give me some actual useful terms and distinctions so I can address whatever you're trying to say, instead of being shocked or surprised that I can't read your mind about it.

I'll respond in more detail later.  about to go eat.

 No.3420

>>3419
> You need to give me some idea of what you mean by pedophilia-related-image-that-isn't-child-pornography because I have no idea what you're trying to say
Besides lolicon porn (which would be against the rules against on account of being porn), see this part of >>3399:
>drawn art that might be drawn for people with an attraction to children. And so, what I'm trying to get at is whether we can ban images that are sfw but still put children into a sexualized context (sexy pose, skimpy outfit, etc)
I.e., lolicon images that are suggestive but not pornographic.  Basically, just any suggestive images that are normally allowed except with children instead of adults.

 No.3421

>>3409 I do not have a diaper fetish, and I do not consider it to be extreme.  So my opinion of it is just as valid as anyone else's.
I think what you will end up with, as now, is a standard of anything-the-busybodies-are-ok-with.

 No.3422

>>3418
>i will note that animated porngraphy of underage individuals is not legal: just not often enforced.
Only in countries other than the US (as applied to fictional children).  SCOTUS held in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) that the First Amendment even goes so far as to protect CGI porn of fictional children:

>Finally, the Government says that the possibility of producing images by using computer imaging makes it very difficult for it to prosecute those who produce pornography by using real children. Experts, we are told, may have difficulty in saying whether the pictures were made by using real children or by using computer imaging. The necessary solution, the argument runs, is to prohibit both kinds of images. The argument, in essence, is that protected speech may be banned as a means to ban unprotected speech. This analysis turns the First Amendment upside down.
>
>The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter. The Constitution requires the reverse. “[T]he possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted … .” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S., at 612. The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process.

Lolicon porn is protected in the US unless it is legally "obscene" (under Miller).  And even then, only distribution (not mere possession) of obscene material can be criminalized.  Stanley v. Georgia (1969).

>But i believe there.are some major precedent decisions where people received substantial jail time for possession.
People make plea deals all the time.  And unfortunately sometimes people are wrongfully convicted when their lawyers miss arguments that could have resulted in an acquittal.

 No.3423

File: 1538852995528.png (268.12 KB, 743x600, 743:600, medium (1).png) ImgOps Google

>>3411
>>3416
Try not to get too stressed Thorax, I don't think anyone is going to hate you because of your stance. I personally agree that no one should ever be punished for a crime they didn't commit.

>>3383
I think a rules board and more explaining/clarity on why things are deleted and/or issued a ban, would greatly help. I still very much like Roses earlier proposal.

And please don't forget Lost that most changes aren't set in stone. Take a break for a while and get yourself calmed down; we can keep working on things.

 No.3424

>>3422
It is a misconception that a supreme Court ruling means it, or anything else, is legal.

There is the de jure law, and the de facto law. It is like this everywhere.

The 2003 Protect Act has been applied by even district courts to extend to animated pornography of unambiguously underage individuals.

i therefore point you to 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

And despite the Supreme Court ruling, multiple individuals have been charged, and convicted, as recently as 2016, or possession of such animated material, such as a 2008 case involving a man who was found to be in possession of "lolicon manga"

If you live in a prosecution friendly state, don't expect the Supreme Court ruling to protect you, unless you can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court and they choose to actually take your appeal.

Otherwise, the law says one thing, and the Supreme Court says another, and as long as convictions for this sort of thing continues, i am of the mind that it is not genuinely legal here, and we must take a harsh stance against it.

 No.3425

>>3417
Thanks Mondo

>>3420
Thanks Anon.

>>3419
I'm sorry, I can't keep this discussion up anymore. That's through no fault of your own either, you've been patient and have put effort into understanding my perspective without making attacks or anything. I appreciate that. But still the stress of this conversation is making me physically ill.

I'll just try to address this one thing. What images am I talking about?

You came up with this spectrum that you think is a more appropriate way to moderate these images:
>Something like completely vanilla > cute > slightly suggestive > make your mom blush > prelude-to-ERP > porn
Take your spectrum, apply it to people that are attracted to children, and there you go. You could apply the spectrum to images that pertain to people with certain fetishes, right? You could apply it to heterosexuals and homosexuals and furries, right? Then you should understand exactly what I mean by "pedophilia-related-image-that-isn't-child-pornography". Pedophilia fits on the spectrum you described and it is more than just the far end "porn". Like, you could imagine a "hetrosexual-related-image-that-isn't-naked-men/women" right? It's just sexy people and shit, that's it. So then, I'm advocating that if we are going to fight for the equality of all sexuality, then we must in good faith include pedophilia into the spectrum and allow the stuff that would qualify as 'vanilla, cute, slightly suggestive' and however far we should allow all types of content to go down that spectrum. Hopefully that makes sense to you.

I probably also should have responded to this:
>>3377
>It sounds like you're putting lolicon and pedophilia on the same sexualization gradient I described above.  Above, I said something just short of porn might be called "prelude-to-ERP".  but to say that all lolicon and pedophile content that isn't technically porn should be allowed (just trying to wrap my head around this) would be something like saying "prelude-to-pedophilic-ERP is ok".  I mean....  really?  That sounds absurd, and I can't possibly argue in favor of such a thing.  Do you really want me to break this down?
I mean boat, this is what fairness is, right? If you think that the site should allow 'prelude-to-ERP' content (I don't know if that is where you draw the line on your spectrum, nor do I even know what a prelude-to-ERP image looks like) then you must include whatever 'prelude-to-pedophilic-ERP' is (assuming it doesn't break any laws).

I mean, this conversation is happening primarily because you had said
>Because clearly there’s a “right” and “wrong” form of sexuality – and you’re just going to keep flaunting it in my face while telling me that I’m wrong.  Well fuck you, then.
and that is something I agree with incredibly strongly. But if you are going to segregate out pedophilia while making a statement like that at the same time, I'm gonna push back on you. Because I believe so strongly that there isn't a 'right' or 'wrong' form of sexuality and I won't compromise on that.

>>3423
Thanks Ella. I have a history of trying to take this stance, because it's important to me for a lot of reasons, that nobody is hated or ostracized for their innate sexuality, and I've historically gotten a lot more hate for speaking up than I've got understanding. I'm just really used to being hated, in more ways than one.

 No.3426

>>3425
> I have a history of trying to take this stance, because it's important to me for a lot of reasons, that nobody is hated or ostracized for their innate sexuality, and I've historically gotten a lot more hate for speaking up than I've got understanding. I'm just really used to being hated, in more ways than one.

 No.3427

File: 1538855780082.jpg (50.63 KB, 637x630, 91:90, fluffy-pure-white-lion-hea….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3424
>i therefore point you to 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
Aren't we saying the same thing?  Lolicon porn is illegal only if it is "obscene".

>>3424
>multiple individuals have been charged, and convicted
But in any of these cases, did the defense vigorously argue that the images in question weren't obscene (e.g., that they didn't lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value)?

 No.3428

>>3427
Unless one's attorney is absolutely incompetent, in such a proceeding, they shall argue against each and every element, including the "obscene" qualifier.

We cannot depend on this one prong, however, and call it legal.

You might have a defense, in a court proceeding, but a defense in court is not the same as legality

 No.3429

File: 1538858237631.jpg (141.93 KB, 1280x854, 640:427, snake-banana.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3425
>I'm sorry, I can't keep this discussion up anymore. That's through no fault of your own either, you've been patient and have put effort into understanding my perspective without making attacks or anything. I appreciate that.
I volunteer to take up your position in this discussion if Boat wants to continue.  

>But still the stress of this conversation is making me physically ill.
I hope you feel better, Thorax.

 No.3430

File: 1538865820018.jpg (4.93 MB, 4160x3120, 4:3, 1006181433a[1].jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3403
>A fetish of being naked all the time is not appropriate in the courtroom.
That's....  also not a fetish.
>What if we allow diaper stuff under the NSFW filter once it is up?
That seems reasonable.
I like how you're ignoring my arguments here.  :twi7:
>>3411  I tend to agree with you, whether you believe that or not.
>>3416  I'm not just paying lip service to it.  I'm having a hard time reconciling what you're saying.  Fictional characters are on the table as far as I'm concerned, and that includes lolicon.  Actual children, even if it's not porn per se, are a completely different matter.  You're not giving me much to work with here as far as examples and information.
>>3418  good to know.  but >>3422 has a different take.  and I read yours as well >>3424
>>3425  I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to make you feel that way.  I have thought quite a bit about the issue of pedophilia, especially since a good friend of mine went to jail for 8 years for possession of child pornography just completely out of the blue, and I often find myself on the same sides of arguments as you do.  I've lost friends over it.  But I was just having a hard time trying to reconcile this position, because what you're asking is not for acceptance of pedophiles, but acceptance of their sexuality itself, as it is, without judgement or limitation (except CP).  Those are two very different things, and I'm really trying to see your side of things here.
>hopefully that makes sense to you.
Ok, that makes sense.  I can see the point you're making.  I think there's still a huge difference whether it's a real child or animated.  A real child can't consent even to merely being ogled by a pedophile, so pictures of a child that would "make your mom blush" are fundamentally no better than child porn in my opinion - because the child has consented to neither.  Animated characters are just pixels on a screen as you put it.  I don't care what people choose to do with them, though I worry whether it will lead them down a dark road.  But if it's a choice between that or something worse, by all means, stick to the lolicon.
>I mean boat, this is what fairness is, right?
Again, you're putting me in a really tough spot here.  A child with a come hither look, in the process of pulling their panties down (the only thing they're wearing)...  I personally would find that incredibly distasteful.  but is it "wrong"?  If it's animated, then no.  If it's real, then yes - it is just as wrong as CP, for the reasons I mentioned above.  You haven't been making this distinction, which is yet another thing that has me confused about what you've been saying.  But sure, lolicon is not fundamentally immoral because it doesn't violate anyone's consent.
>But if you are going to segregate out pedophilia while making a statement like that at the same time, I'm gonna push back on you. Because I believe so strongly that there isn't a 'right' or 'wrong' form of sexuality and I won't compromise on that.
Perhaps you are right to do so.  But where I speak up for pedophiles as people, I've never considered speaking up for their sexuality.  The obvious problem is that so often their sexuality leads to a very dark place, and not just hypothetically.  It is something I will need to think more about.
>>3429
>I volunteer to take up your position in this discussion if Boat wants to continue.  
If you like.

 No.3431

File: 1538869043080.jpg (46.4 KB, 488x480, 61:60, eggplant-imposter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3430
Let confine it to images that are produced without the use of actual children.  E.g., lolicon drawings or computer-generated imagery (CGI).  After reading your post, I'm not sure what your position is now.  Do you think loli drawings (of fictional characters) ought to be allowed by the rules be as suggestive and risque as images of adults?

 No.3432

>>3431 In principle, yes.  Personally I would find it incredibly distasteful.  I'm not sure it is a good idea regardless, for several reasons.  I mean if people are throwing a bitchfit over clean diapers, I can't imagine this would go over any better.

 No.3433

File: 1538873115497.jpeg (1.75 MB, 1580x2234, 790:1117, 1575978.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Uh. I have not been following this. 700 posts?

Can somebody tell me where we're at?

 No.3434

>>3433 light fetish stuff is ok, extreme fetish stuff is not.  Huge argument about what is extreme or not.  About what might be allowed with filter.  And a separate issue about lolicon with relation to everything, which is unresolved.

 No.3435

File: 1538874534565.png (17.45 KB, 607x597, 607:597, 144109__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>3433

Absolutely nothing of import has occurred and people are still arguing.

 No.3436

File: 1538874614645.jpg (1.32 MB, 1920x1200, 8:5, 7036192-cat-and-dog-cuddle.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3432
>In principle, yes.
So then it seems that you and Thorax are in agreement on that issue?

 No.3437

File: 1538875624821.png (779.44 KB, 848x1286, 424:643, 9717.png) ImgOps Google

>>3345
>No amount of polling can accurately determine what people want, why they're here, what they like to do.  People just don't know that about themselves.  Any change, a few weeks down the road, could result in someone just deciding to not post, and they won't even tell anyone.  They'll just get bored and not spend time here and we'll all wonder where they went.

I mean.
You could ask them. In some cases that alone might be enough to prevent some people from leaving.

 No.3438

File: 1538876107516.jpg (112.6 KB, 1009x632, 1009:632, 31353__safe_artist-colon-k….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3434
I was curious as well.  700 is a big number of posts.  Hmm...much about sexuality, huh.  I have opinions about sexuality, but as far as I'm concerned the public and/or ponyville does not deserve to know my opinions, so whatever.  Have fun!

 No.3439

File: 1538876177563.jpeg (240.98 KB, 2550x2550, 1:1, 1800311.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3438
I'm curious about your opinions on it.

>>3434
>>3435
Ah.

Tell me when we come to a clear conclusion? It's a bit difficult to follow for me at times.

 No.3440

File: 1538877102665.png (1009.56 KB, 1280x896, 10:7, fs_5.png) ImgOps Google

>>3439
>I'm curious about your opinions on it.

Acknowledged.  Requests for specific opinions may be made to leitheiserhannah@runbox.com.  Sharing information disclosed through e-mail on ponyville will not be authorized under threat of breaking Behavioral Rule #10 and basic human etiquette that says you don't talk about sexual topics publicly.  (It's for your safety more than mine.)

 No.3441

File: 1538877841871.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google

>>3437

It might be enough, it's a good idea, but it won't necessarily be enough.  It won't even necessarily be accurate information.

The ineffectiveness of communication in this regard does not mean it shouldn't be done, only that it isn't a simple method without a significant chance of failure.

 No.3442

File: 1538879484241.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

Hello, my dear pony friends. After a loooong day, and a lot of time reviewing the debates, i think it might be time for me to lock this thread.

Now, i don't want to just kill the debate: that's note the point, and i'd like to point to Canterlot as an excellent place for us to continue this discussion.

That said, at nearly 800 posts, this thread has become too difficult to negotiate, and is sometimes even hard for me to open on my phone.

i'd also like for us to take some decisive initiative here.

Effective immediately, our policy towards fetishistic content, as per the new rule, shall treat fetish content the same as regular sexual content: don't get too explicit about it, don't derail threads with it, and know your audience.

This includes lizards on leashes and diapers and what not.

However, we expect all posts to treat this decision with respect: this doesn't mean you can spam this stuff all over, and we seriously hope you won't do that just to test boundaries.

These boundaries aren't for the staff's sake: their for your fellow users.

In addition, we'll be reorganizing our rule on advertising in the near future, to be more allowing for our userbase to share their creations without ambiguity.

Lastly, we expect that when the nsfw filter is put in, that users who post any kind of sexy stuff, be it fetish or otherwise, would kindly use the filter option: this way, we can proceed with our rolling out of the rules, hopefully, without too much further contention.

does this sound agreeable?

please let me know. And please, please, please, respect your thread op's, respect your audience, and treat this as a privilege, for the time being.

Thread will be locked in two hours from now, so that others can respond. After thread lock, a Canterlot link will be posted here, where the discussion can continue as it pleases.

thank you all for your attention.

 No.3443

File: 1538879486515.jpg (146.84 KB, 907x1548, 907:1548, 1accdaaa585d81b70ced4ff727….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3441
Then I imagine that the most appropriate thing to do would be to follow up.

It's certainly a lot of work for quite uncertain payoffs, but no more than this.

 No.3444

File: 1538879571152.gif (776.88 KB, 250x186, 125:93, b67.gif) ImgOps Google


 No.3445

File: 1538880890467.png (49.37 KB, 543x404, 543:404, I didn't realize you were ….png) ImgOps Google

>>3443

Sure!  The point of the post wasn't that things are impossible to solve, just that a site like this can be very volatile and unpredictable, even with questioning.

 No.3446

File: 1538881238958.png (767.71 KB, 1200x1600, 3:4, Suri.Alpaca.(Kemono.Friend….png) ImgOps Google

>>3445
Ah, I see.

Well I do appreciate the effort you all go through. I can imagine that the mod chat has been every bit as active as the entire rest of the community regarding these rules. I just imagine that a couple little victories would be good for morale.

 No.3447

>>3436 most likely
>>3438 perhaps some other place at another time
>>3442 thank you.   Sincerely mean that.

 No.3448

File: 1538883161523.gif (1.95 MB, 464x200, 58:25, qWw49oa.gif) ImgOps Google


 No.3449

File: 1538887245354.jpg (468.2 KB, 2045x2445, 409:489, 20181004_214706-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3442
Woohoo last in.

Nopony post, big mac in a tutu should be forever the last post itt.

Thx Moonsy!!  Pony hugs to all.

 No.3450

File: 1538888430446.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

http://ponyville.us/canterlot/res/1913.html

Continuing discussion link! Thank you all for your input, and for discussing with me.

i am hoping that we have reached a good resolution, for all posters here.

Please keep your eyes out for the incoming advertising rule change and for the NSFW switch, which i hope will be the second piece of this puzzle, and allow for our users, all of our users, to feel safe and at home.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]