[ 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[Last 50 Posts]

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

 No.2729

No advertising allowed! :aj7:

 No.2730

Seriously though, what are you going to do about these mutually exclusive rules?

 No.2731

File: 1538500654751.png (109.32 KB, 792x556, 198:139, full (29).png) ImgOps Google

>>2728

VIII. Rule 3., Version 3. Please do not post fetishistic content that crosses the line into being sexually charged; [Lenient Rule, permits more general images that may involve fetishes]

The question is whether the bias that all fetishes are implicitly sexually charged will be applied in actual practice.

VIII. Rule 4. Posting of sexually charged content, designed for and appealing to a predominantly sexual interest, that involves people or imaginary characters under the age of 17, or assumed to be under that age by a reasonable person, is prohibited.

Yay!  No more "cmcs can fuck cuz they have cutie marks" bullshit.


Regardless, statutory mandatory sentencing guidelines are adopted making this site a rather uncomfortable place for a lost pony to post.  I find this a sad thing but, the community seems all but unanimous on this so perhaps a lost pony will be more often found elsewhere.

 No.2732

File: 1538500800951.gif (341.69 KB, 540x304, 135:76, pretty horns.gif) ImgOps Google

>>2728
Now, what's next?

 No.2733

File: 1538500881335.png (79.64 KB, 215x203, 215:203, sigh.png) ImgOps Google

>>2728
>III. SFW Switch
>PASSED - 75%y - 25%n
I pray you guys know how to implement this well.

 No.2734

File: 1538501905002.png (7.95 KB, 362x394, 181:197, 274156__semi-dash-grimdark….png) ImgOps Google

>>2728

Scrutinizing the rules revisions it's unclear whether the poster of a fetish image is guilty of a Second or Third degree offense.  As there is no "user reprimanded" in the version that passed then perhaps that poster is not guilty of any level of offense unless the bahavior is repeated to a degree that it becomes "shitposting" or some other offense?

Further what is shitposting anyway.  A lost pony's posts are ALL shit.  What is the rules definition of shitposting?

 No.2735

File: 1538502077030.png (130.85 KB, 401x433, 401:433, Happy shy 4.png) ImgOps Google

>>2729
just ask permission!

>>2730
what do you mean, sailboat?

>>2732
implementation! The rules board is up, and the rules that are passed are active

>>2731
>>2729
i understand there is still some difficulty with some of the rules. That's okay - we can look at them again together, and if you'd like, you are welcome to continue the discussion in Canterlot too

>>2734
>Do not post content of an aggressively, ironically, or trollishly poor quality, designed to derail discussions, or otherwise make the site unusable or intolerable to our regular community;

New Rule 7 is our "sh*tposting" rule

>>2731
Our community wants more standardized sentencing, lp. As it was, folks were getting really frustrated by how often certain users were perceived as "getting away" with rule violations

And to some extent, it is true. There are indeed a few users who received giant numbers of warnings, but very few bans.

This will help the staff reach more consistency: something users have complained about before.

>>2733
we will try our best, artee c: i promise, it will not be so bad.

 No.2736

>>2734
sorrie to jump in!
LOVE THAT picture!

 No.2737

File: 1538502935537.png (187.3 KB, 425x422, 425:422, woaah.png) ImgOps Google

>>2735
>shly poor quality, designed to derail discussions, or otherwise make the site unusable or intolerable to our regular community;
Technically, that can still be a lot.

 No.2738

File: 1538503108476.png (313.98 KB, 750x850, 15:17, Videogame session.png) ImgOps Google

>>2735
Rome wasn't built in one day.
Better work and think hard and not "We will try our very best" instead "The staff and I, we are going to give our 200% into this"  because saying that shit of "We will try our very best" it doesn't sounds very convincing from your part.

 No.2739

File: 1538504938860.jpg (49.97 KB, 736x736, 1:1, 255d1e1dfad99aff2c38d705f4….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2738
Are you joking?

Moons already gave this his 400% and i find his post very comforting.


>>2736
It's in violation of Rule 2 depicting gore and extreme violence.  a lost pony will probably be banned soon.

 No.2740

>>2739
i saw the horn to late.. it first looked like a crazy hug.. im sorrie

 No.2741

File: 1538505344053.png (263.67 KB, 757x1055, 757:1055, meadowbreeze_comm___pokey_….png) ImgOps Google

>>2740
Its some old fan ship whose stallion oddly has a diaper pin for a symbol.

 No.2742

File: 1538506051186.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

>>2738
>>2739
i'd like to think, we already try to go above and beyond, Einhorn.

If ever you think there is something i can do, or the staff can do, to improve, please let us know, okay?

 No.2743

>>2735 ....

just that you have more and less stringent versions of the same rule passed, so what happens?

 No.2744

File: 1538507174171.png (703.27 KB, 1272x710, 636:355, phosh.png) ImgOps Google

>>2742
Prove it, in the implementation and with improved rules of the site.

Now, the hardest task has just begun!

 No.2745

>>2744
You are a hard man x4, Einhorn Sweep.

 No.2746

File: 1538507567499.png (307.62 KB, 787x641, 787:641, eh heheh.png) ImgOps Google

>>2743
...what do you mean, sailboat?

>>2744
well, we'll... uh... give it 200%

 No.2747

>>2746 I can quote it later if you like, at the airport now

 No.2748

>>2746
Why, even Speed Stick only gives 110 percent, Moons!

 No.2749

File: 1538511974936.png (304 KB, 562x600, 281:300, silverstream10.png) ImgOps Google

>>2748
Ponyville strives to be better than Speed Stick.

 No.2750

>>2749
Are you sure?

 No.2751

File: 1538512835579.png (209.67 KB, 411x413, 411:413, Silverstream6.png) ImgOps Google

>>2750
With its special secret blend of herbs and spices, Ponyville strives for exceptional horsefuckery.

 No.2752

>>2751

One last 80s pit deodorant commercial:  ban
https://youtu.be/CtNsStbqhg8

 No.2753

>>2731
I think probably, by virtue of, at least from the discussion in the last thread, being reported more often. It seems that's the larger criteria for determining if a rule violation had occurred.
This will still loosen the lot, however.

 No.2754

>>2728
You really ought to post what specifically has passed.

 No.2755

File: 1538518100007.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>2754
i thought i did :c they are sorted by version.

if you mean the text, that is now present in the rules board, in full formatting

 No.2756

Personally I don't see why the SFW switch can't just be like a spoiler tag. Am I misunderstanding or was the idea to make entire posts invisible and unseen? At the very least, having the switch on should still let you see that a post exists.

 No.2757

File: 1538519839257.jpg (19.63 KB, 550x275, 2:1, pinkytiedup.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2756

There's a mis-wording that says whole post but Moony has clarified that it's the image only that won't be visible.

It is intended to be distinct from spoiler tags in that it is controlled not by clicking on it but by a user setting that filters all nsfw at once.  It's up to the poster to properly tag the image as well.  Hopefully, there will be a mod option to add such a tag in the event that someone forgets or misjudges, rather than deleting the image.


>>2753
The measure to weight posts reported by being reported failed to pass, with a 50%.  This is an issue where every single vote made the difference, as a community we are split on this but there can be no rule weighting a reported post more because it failed to get a simple majority.

btw hi Nooms!  hi Dulset!

 No.2758

File: 1538520533204.jpg (10.45 KB, 236x236, 1:1, pinkyglasses.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2728
Hey Moons on the new Rules board, the description of the degrees should come before their enumeration, specifically the line that begins "Rules are separated into three degrees" should be at the top.


edit:  oh yeah I don't see the baiting/goading section codified there yet.

 No.2759

File: 1538520734431.jpg (30.09 KB, 514x650, 257:325, 3fd033a08174e04d412cdd3761….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2757
I don't mean by that specific rule, but rather the discussion of how rules are enforced in the prior thread. Though, no doubt, it would be more significant, and more Universal to each mod, where that rule passed.
>>2755
I was meaningful text. I can't really remember most of this stuff, unfortunately.
>>2756
from what I understand of the filter system, it's supposed to only take away images.

 No.2760

File: 1538522059860.jpg (116.86 KB, 900x1020, 15:17, pinkyeyelashes.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2759
That is theoretically a "case precedent" function where specific issues, as discussed, receive a ruling and the results get added to the rules board.  I don't know, perhaps such refinements should be initiated by posting a thread on Canterlot?

Specifically, the issue of certain images and guidelines in how to judge them.  I strongly disagree with Wizard's criteria for judging certain details in such images, so hopefully we can get the staff to engage with us to hammer out the applicable guidelines and then publish them on the rules board so we can get consistency.

I get the impression that some posters are sick of my approach to discussing it on the /pony/ board which is why I think raising the issues on /canterlot/ is probably better.
 
The community has spoken as to the content of the rules, in particular that
1) such images should be allowed unless they are "sexually charged", and
2) that even if we stray too close to the sun that we will not be "reprimanded" for it.

Moons, please advise.  Should someone raise the issue of criteria on Canterlot or, do we just step in poop and then deal with it case by case from there?

 No.2761

File: 1538526063403.jpg (183.56 KB, 564x338, 282:169, cold with yu.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I am glad to see the SFW switch passed.

And that things have one more or less without incident. I'll resume my hiatus for a little longer.

 No.2762

>>2760
Personally, I prefer main board discussions. More likely the common user will contribute and hear. Speaking for myself I rarely, if ever, use a site board.

 No.2763

Ok I can't cross reference this because you changed the numbers.  What happened to the choices that were different degrees of the same thing?

 No.2764

File: 1538542020751.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

>>2763
the choice with the most votes won, in each of those variation runoffs.

so, if there were four variations of a rule, and two had over 50%, then the one with the most yay votes would be selected.

>>2760
lp, i don't understand what you mean in this post. may i ask you to rephrase it for me?

>>2761
i am hoping, things will improve and you will feel happy and at home here ,sherlock!

 No.2765

>>2764 thanks

 No.2766

>>2735
>And to some extent, it is true. There are indeed a few users who received giant numbers of warnings, but very few bans.
Well that's rather orthogonal to increasing the severity of bans.  I think 2-week-long bans would be enough to address it, but unfortunately such an option wasn't included in the vote options.

 No.2767

File: 1538543720242.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, yes.png) ImgOps Google

>>2766
>>2766
we can give it a test run, and if the system turns out too strict we can edit it and make it work better as the need arises c:

 No.2768

File: 1538546514767.jpg (3.87 MB, 4160x3120, 4:3, 20181002_221150.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2764
I was asking the procedure for refining the fetish image guidelines.

Now that we have a democratically selected standard, Nooms and i would like to test some of our preferred images against that standard and refine the guidelines.

As an example i don't like the criteria Wizard applied under the old rules.  How do we go about setting up a test case and work out where the boundaries are?  Just post merrily along until we get into trouble (stepping in poop) or, initiate a thread for that purpose?

Nooms wants to post his cute dragon pokemon offering its leash and i want to confirm my baby-play Pinky image, for starters.  And i think we should have a ruling on the pet-play Sonata image.

Etc.  What do you think is the least burdensome way (for both the staff and the community) to proceed with this step?

 No.2769

File: 1538549076193.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

>>2768
>>2768
i see your post lp; i'm too tired and busy right now to respond, and i will be out most of the day tomorrow, but i shall try to respond nonetheless

i'm not super fond of the idea of a test case sort of thing, but i don't want you to just have to test the waters by risking rule violation either

give me some time to think, and i will get back to you

in the meantime... you know, just don't post those things.

 No.2770

File: 1538550252035.png (47.75 KB, 200x200, 1:1, oh no his cute face.png) ImgOps Google

>>2764
Thank you, Moony.

 No.2771

File: 1538552256619.png (122.8 KB, 362x533, 362:533, 036.png) ImgOps Google

>>2769
Of course Moonses, there's no hurry.

 No.2772

File: 1538552875951.png (77.52 KB, 666x640, 333:320, More Fedoras.png) ImgOps Google

>>2768
>>2769

My opinion here is that it should be okay to "step in poop".  A lot of people seem to take serious offense to when mods do things, which I can sort of understand, but it's almost always just a polite request not to do things again, which most people agree with and follow.  

There are a couple specific cases that have been brought up to discuss, but also as a general rule I'd say you should just tag any image that you'd have to ask about.  There's no downside to tagging images, as far as I understand the system, so always be on the safe side and the people who are okay with seeing that will see it and the people who are worried about seeing stuff don't have to see it.

Maybe that doesn't quite float with how the system is actually implemented, though, I only have an idea of its purpose rather than the technical specifications.

 No.2773

File: 1538553532319.jpeg (29.94 KB, 450x450, 1:1, 511d3a1a-34a2-48f9-9045-9….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2772

I appreciate that, Mondo.

Looks like we have to be patient while the NSFW tag is implemented.

I'm happy the rule that prevailed does NOT include "reprimand user" so it should be safe enough to just let the issue occur naturally.

 No.2774

File: 1538578916586.jpg (242.67 KB, 627x470, 627:470, 1529109262568.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2768
Fetish images of known adults wearing outfits strongly associated with underage children technically do not violate Adult Content Rule 4, but such images still can make people uncomfortable.

 No.2775

File: 1538579557680.png (30.15 KB, 309x357, 103:119, charmeleon-head.png) ImgOps Google

>>2768
>cute dragon pokemon offering its leash
I think the consensus was that that image would be fine except for the text "sub as fuck".

 No.2776

File: 1538580031971.png (Spoiler Image, 270.2 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 1537838445922.png) ImgOps Google

>>2768
Also, some images might be fine in one context but objectionable in another context.  E.g., LeAnon made a thread (which unfortunately he subsequently deleted) on /canterlot/ asking about this image, and I think the conclusion was that the image is generally fine, but not fine in a context that is sexually charged or when it accompanies text that could be interpreted as BDSM fetish.

 No.2777

File: 1538582323499.png (30.99 KB, 323x292, 323:292, This is going to require a….png) ImgOps Google

>>2774

This is definitely true, and for that reason I would likely say to still tag it?

 No.2778

And pet play Sonata?

 No.2779

File: 1538591995936.jpg (119.5 KB, 863x968, 863:968, 5417019476bc936706dc199d81….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2775
My issue was always that it wasn't particularly sexual outside of, at best, implications of later actions down the road.
At which point, you might as well point to marriage and say that's banned by virtue of implying intercourse down the road.
And of course, in the mean time, Toybox posts people with literally nothing but hair covering massive tits.

 No.2780

File: 1538593197660.png (113.67 KB, 542x477, 542:477, full (29)-1.png) ImgOps Google

>>2779
That's because mainstream tastes are treated differently than the fringe and the 80%vs20% vote count confirms this is the case on this site.

It's unfair but, at least it's been decided not to penalize us personally for mistakes in judgment so no one's looking to burn us at the stake for it.

Even if images i consider to be about recreating a time of being nurtured and cared for as a security blanket against anxiety and how the mainstream has treated me, are connected in the minds of the mainstream to deviant sex and makes them "uncomfortable".  I suppose that's to be expected, the mainstream has always been fixated on finding someone to look down upon to exclude and be made "uncomfortable" by, and it's my error to assume the majority of denizens of a "pony place" would be any different.

Just the mere mention of this has branded me a deviant to be barely tolerated, at best, while the discomfort we feel at being subjected to the mainstream fixation on disgustingly large breasts is something we're supposed to just deal with, as the price for being on the playground with the mainstream kids instead of locked away somewhere by ourselves.

 No.2781

File: 1538593671373.png (1.11 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100316.png) ImgOps Google

>>2780
To be honest, diapers have a VERY strong association to scat fetishes, which is the primary reason it makes people uncomfortable. The idea of a diaper on an adult basically gives people images of people wallowing in their own excrement. That is the main reason it has the negative stigma that it does.

Everyone sees things differently, and that is fine. But you do have to take the majority in mind when you do things in public. I mean most people here are more understanding than most, but there are things that are still off limits that some people don't like to be reminded of, which is why I never bring up my more extreme fetishes unless it's relevant to the topic at hand.

 No.2782

File: 1538594144349.jpg (23.65 KB, 289x356, 289:356, 10f7d3f2718469641f34be6716….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2780
>>2781
I can kind of understand it for diapers, given that it's heavily associated with waste, but, dom/sub jazz doesn't have any of that. Further, at least to my own tastes, I find a half-naked girl far more disruptive to some sub lizard with a leash. Certainly seems to tickle my own sensitivities more, though that might have more to do with the places it tends to be used, rather than the content itself.

And, mind you, it isn't a fetish I'm in to or anything like that. At least the dom/sub aspect, though bondage can be interesting. I prefer equal, confident partners. I just find the image itself cute, and not at all contentious.

 No.2783

File: 1538594577053.jpg (241.63 KB, 852x719, 852:719, Screenshot_20180927-085447.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2782
Anthros are associated with furries, which are (wrongly) associated with bestiality. Even more so when they are mostly feral in appearance.

BDSM often has associations with slave/master play which has implications of forced sex, I.E. rape, which can make people uncomfortable as well.

 No.2784

File: 1538594732264.png (379.57 KB, 586x796, 293:398, 1521969639766.png) ImgOps Google

>>2783
I don't see a single way you could ever possibly get rape out of that example, though.

As to the whole 'furries = bestiality', I'd simply point to Manley and the bait around him, which is generally following far more animalistic characters.
Oh, and, y'know, ponies in general.

 No.2785

File: 1538594949203.jpg (33.92 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 41199282_1833469366706943_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2748

Slightly late, but I had to find it.

 No.2786

File: 1538595278644.jpg (37.02 KB, 500x443, 500:443, DiEetpRUcAA62Vu.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2785
Ron is my role model.

 No.2787

>>2784 apparently giant naked breasts are fine as long as they aren't 'obscene', but anything that anyone interprets as being fetish related is off limits because by default it is 'sexually charged'.  love double standards...  :twi7:

 No.2788

File: 1538595375888.gif (4.66 MB, 400x224, 25:14, Fvu-se.gif) ImgOps Google

>>2787
More or less my issue.
Hopefully that changes now. Especially with the NSFW filter.
Though, either way, I'm a tad skeptical.

 No.2789

>>2788 I'd like to be able to post my videos and streams without having to beg for permission first, but you can't always get what you want.

 No.2790

File: 1538595575951.png (140.26 KB, 509x448, 509:448, 6.png) ImgOps Google

>>2789
Yeh, that was a dumb rule as well.
Guess you can't convince everyone, though.

To be fair, I initially said "yae" to it, by virtue of not really caring or thinking about it too heavily. So, I can definitely see why people assumed it'd be okay.

 No.2791

File: 1538598491262.jpg (12.14 KB, 236x284, 59:71, pinky3.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2781
>association to scat,

Oh, hidden for ranting.  Don't come crying about how offensive my argument is if you click the button.

but this is not even close to the reality of most people who are interested in them.  I just went surfing last night and found a huge community out there that find them "cute" on ponies and many of them are disgusted by scat as well.
BDSM is associated with forced sex as well, however this is entirely false.  It is a power exchange similar to traditional marriage, deeper in fact, and in reality many, many just love the trappings and aren't interested in the power exchange at all.

The desire to demonize the fringe is almost entirely in the minds of the breast-obsessed mainstream.  Unrealisticly large mostly-naked breasts are entirely obscene to me, in that they directly objectify women as something for pleasure of the worst sort of oogling males in ways that are the opposite of practical.  It is far more of a directly offensive fetish than ANY of the fringe stuff, which only make people "uncomfortable" because, in my view, they WANT to be made "uncomfortable" so they can finger-point and experience outrage rather than examine why in themselves their own obsessions is disgusting to those of us who find women to be wonderful and valuable companions and life partners.


Breasts are for babies, my dudes.  Finding them attractive in gigantic sizes is absolutely disgusting.  That the mainstream feels it's OK means that my desire to feel secure, or Noom's desire to enjoy a cute lizard image is only an excuse to be made uncomfortable so they can justify their own sick fetish.


Now, that is a harsh thing to say.  But we can test it.  While I hope I am wrong, I do not believe that the NSFW switch is going to clear this all up, because those who are made uncomfortable are not going to use it to feel comfortable.  They are going to turn it off so they can see things that make them uncomfortable so they can complain and justify their own self-righteousness.


Oh, I'll probably be flamed for this, and it could be interpreted as "bait" and well, maybe I'll get warned about it or banned.  But, I'm at the end of my rope with the inequality of being considered into scat because I like security while I have to endure images I find disgusting just because there is a majority that shares that fixation over mine.


I am grateful to this community and its staff for not simply red-lining me as a troublemaker, and I don't intend to make trouble.  But it is hard to remain silent when those who have outrageously offensive fixations of their own get away with projecting their own disgusting correlations onto my interests, or those of anyone else.


Yes, I understand how it works.  And that just makes it that more unacceptable to me.


>>2785
>there can be no 110%
Exactly!  Sounds like me in the 80s when these commercials were current.

 No.2792

File: 1538601334574.png (846.47 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20180927-085310.png) ImgOps Google

>>2791
I didn't say I agreed with it. I said that's what the general public thinks about it.

I'm into some of this stuff myself, like furries and BDSM (among other things). However that doesn't blind me to the fact that there are very real stigmas surrounding these things and you're not going to get the chance to plead your case with everyone you meet.

The judgment may be unfair but the reality is there is very little you can do about it other than accept that it happens.

 No.2793

File: 1538601862019.jpg (88.49 KB, 666x500, 333:250, 1all3x.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2780
I don't think the intent was ever to b'burn people at the stake', though I can understand if you were afraid of that because of how heated the topics got in the threads at times.

I don't want to see people banned because they like a certain picture, but the goal is to try and make everyone comfortable.

It's sort of like at work, how sometimes everyone shares a breakroom, and everyone etas lunch up there. Well what if someone brought a really smelly lunch in that they love, but everyone else is feeling mildly nauseous fromthe smell?

I would think people would ask them to just cover it up or eat it somewhere else, rather than running to the manager and asking that the person get a write up.

I mean, that's the way I think of it anyway.

 No.2794

File: 1538602523194.png (1.04 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20180929-095815.png) ImgOps Google

>>2793
I think LP is more upset at the how it's not fair that people are 'justified' in being uncomfortable with what he likes but it's okay for them to do things that make him uncomfortable just because the mainstream is okay with it.

I mean yeah. It's​ really not fair, but when you're in a community, majority rules.

 No.2795

File: 1538605151692.jpg (8.58 KB, 259x194, 259:194, pinkyUS.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2793
Burning at the stake was among the voting options, which did freak me out a bit but, the majority did not enact that option so, a lost pony remains.

Your analogy of microwaving fish in the breakroom is astute actually.  The difference is, when you work for an Asian company it doesn't matter how nauseous it makes you, it's going to happen.

Which is what we have arrived at here with the double standard.  If 80% don't want to see my lunch in the breakroom because of the imaginary smell that isn't really there, then why do I have to put up with their stinky fish that has a real smell that really does make me nauseous.

>>2794
Do I seem upset?  I dunno, but the rest of your statement is dead-on.

I think everyone is tired of this point so I endeavor to shut up now. Long live the majority.

 No.2796

File: 1538605892461.jpg (56.74 KB, 886x526, 443:263, me_gusta_jelly_pony_by_sti….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2795
>then why do I have to put up with their stinky fish that has a real smell that really does make me nauseous.

I thought the filter was covering everyone's stinky fish

 No.2797

>>2789
> I'd like to be able to post my videos and streams without having to beg for permission first
Didn't Moony already preëmptively give you permission to post your vidoes?

 No.2798

File: 1538609522743.gif (493.46 KB, 500x363, 500:363, tumblr_inline_nkcth6oTIW1r….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2791
For myself, the judge mental issue of it is largely not my concern, as it is the standardization. But, I do have to say, there is a lot of irony in a board for ponies restricting such content for that reason.
We were those people not that long ago. The social outcasts. Still are, to a large degree.

 No.2799

>>2792
We could at least not enforce it as a rule.
Which, fortunately, it looks like is being done, though I'm still a touch skeptical of what it'll be in practice.

 No.2800

>>2793
Tuna makes me feel that way. But, because I'd not like it were my tastes in foods banned, I'd empathize with the tuna lover, and simply man up.

 No.2801

>>2794
I'm of the opinion that isn't how it should be.
"Tyranny of the majority", and all that.

 No.2802

File: 1538610660249.png (256.15 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_normal_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2796
The filter doesn't change any site rules, as it happens, and, at least from what I gathered from moony in the last thread, it does not appear there are plans to change that.
It seems the filter is purely for the community's sake.

 No.2803

File: 1538612363614.jpg (10.45 KB, 236x236, 1:1, pinkyglasses.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2796
Nope.  If I want to see my preferred content, I'd have to fly with the filter turned off.  I'll have no way to filter those mainstream fixations that I find disgusting, while I must hide the things I find comforting.  This really feels unfair to me.

There are other places that have less difficulty separating SFW and NSFW content without treating any type of material prejudicially.  Places where a "sub as fuck" T-shirt or a diaper doesn't make a non-sexual image into a sexual image that makes people "uncomfortable".  Places where I'm not categorized as having a "fixation" that must be concealed, by a majority whose fixation is openly flaunted.

I appreciate that the majority has not voted to exclude me outright, but I feel marginalized by the existence of a dual standard and the baseless demeaning assumptions implicit in it.

I have the real world to feel marginalized and demeaned in, where I must hide my true self.  If I must hide myself here, I really don't see who benefits from burdening the majority with my presence.  

>>2798
This, wholeheartedly.

 No.2804

>>2797  no

 No.2805

File: 1538612829394.png (68.98 KB, 1280x1280, 1:1, 1495839466.seadragom_think….png) ImgOps Google

>>2803
>>2788
>>2787
>double standards
I don't see anything inherently bad in having double standards.  E.g., for the sexual rules, we have one rule for drawing of fictional characters who look like adults and another different rule for drawing of fictional characters who look like they are under the age of majority, but I don't see anyone complaining about that double standard.

 No.2806

File: 1538613171771.png (1.32 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100434.png) ImgOps Google

>>2803
I think it's about moderation and self restraint.

You know me. I can be lewd and nasty as fuck and I am much more like that on Ponychan than I am here. But that's because it's a different group of people.

I tone down my nature here to be respectful of the overall atmosphere of the place. I don't feel like this place owes me anything and I haven't felt pressured to hide how I am. If anything I just know what is okay to do here and what probably isn't and I do what I feel is more in line with how the community operates.

But again that is just how I was raised to interact with people. They don't completely shut down my sexual nature and in turn I don't take advantage of that tolerance. It's a mutual respect sort of thing for me.

That's just how I see it.

 No.2807

>>2806  I appreciate that you haven't been posting naked girls here lately.

 No.2808

>>2805
probably because that isn't a double standard. The rule is built to prevent pedophilia. Pedophilia is in many places illegal, and it is a potential item that could get our server's pulled. Or even get some of our users in trouble.
Given that, it is best to avoid the lot. The reason for it does not apply a double standard, in any case. The reason is what determines whether or not an item has a double standard, else the fact that theory is not punished as harshly as murder would be a double standard.

 No.2809

File: 1538613831324.jpg (64.53 KB, 316x297, 316:297, Screenshot_20181002-100457.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2807
I never posted full nudity here.

 No.2810

>>2809  I appreciate that you haven't been posting practically naked girls here lately.  :dash3:

 No.2811

>>2809
I think he's referring to the aforementioned only hair covering breasts type items.

 No.2812

>>2808
>The rule is built to prevent pedophilia. Pedophilia is in many places illegal, and it is a potential item that could get our server's pulled. Or even get some of our users in trouble.
Lolicon porn and CP are already prohibited by the "no porn" rule.  Adult Content Rule 4 doesn't ban anything illegal that isn't already banned Adult Content Rule 2.  Adult Content Rule 4 goes further and bans even vaguely suggestive images and text.

Also, just to be pedantic: "Pedophilia" means "a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children".  Merely having this mental disorder is not illegal in any significant countries.  

 No.2813

File: 1538616181422.jpg (423.07 KB, 1512x1080, 7:5, 1468635361805.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>839197
Rules need to be designed with the vast majority of the population in mind.  Peanuts are legal to sell, even though they cause anaphylaxis in a small minority of people.  But selling a food item that has an agent that is pathogenic to a majority of people is generally illegal, even if some small minority is immune to it.

 No.2814

>>2812
Ah, I guess I misunderstood that rule, then.
though, in that regard I think you could argue that it is for a different reason than is content like it that which toy box posts.
Though that would depend on the principle being used to say no lolicon.

I am not sure exactly why this one is spend, but if it is for public disgust, then I suppose yes, you could say it is the case of a double standard. At least, given that people like lost Pony evidently take issue with large titted posts.
if that was the reason to forbid it, personally, I am more than happy to say that's a lousy reason to do so.
I am generally opposed to the tyranny of the majority. And I do not think that this is necessary to cater to the majority sensibilities, as often that is not an inherently good thing. It's not always built off of solid reasoning.

Good example being that homosexuality was considered offencive by the larger population for a long while. Same could be said, even now, for transgenderism.
Point being, public opinion can be wrong, and even outright oppressive. That's why rules and standards would largely be built off of principle, as apply to every single person, equally.

 No.2815

>>2813
And do we warn people if items may contain peanuts?

 No.2816

>>2815
That's the purpose of the soon-to-be-implemented NSFW filter.

 No.2817

>>2816
except that the NSFW filter has been stated to not actually change any content. Content that is allowed will still be allowed, while content that isn't allowed will still not be allowed.

 No.2818

>>2814
I don't take issue with "large titted posts".

I take issue with that being OK while things I like to post that aren't even sexual are excluded because some people like to imagine horrible things and hold me accountable for the rotten shit that goes on in their minds that I have nothing to do with.


it's irrelevant anyway.  I'm not comfortable here anymore.  The issue of the images isn't even going to fix it, the oppressive judgment of the majority has done its work.

 No.2819

>>2817
But Moony basically said the opposite of that in >>831994 and >>832009.

 No.2820

>>2818
I was meaning more that you seem to have an issue with the content, on its own, not necessarily that you would want it removed. That is to say, it's not something you particularly like to see.
Point was, it isn't simply removing things people find defensive, as a simple principle, it's removing things only the majority finds offencive. Which is naturally much more fluid and ever-changing. And, of course, it isn't like we even pulled for this sort of thing, as is.

it's very easy to feel out of place when you are arguing against the status quo. I certainly have that sort of feeling. Still, unless people are directly telling you to leave, I wouldn't worry about it too much. It seems, if nothing else, the conversation has resulted in more people agreeing, going by which version of the rule was used.
it is now supposed to be much laxer than it was before we had these conversations.

 No.2821

File: 1538617914448.png (3.01 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, cgadine.png) ImgOps Google

>>2819
Except that the posts you cite literally have Mooney saying exactly what I have.
the rule does not change. At best, the line becomes much broader, and it becomes much more difficult to tell what is allowed and what isn't. It becomes far more difficult to determine which posts will get you banned, and which boasts will not. Near as I can tell, even with the filter, toy box is still fine to post help naked pictures of women with nothing but their hair covering their tits, both with the filter and without.
this is more of an issue with the way that the rules have been framed around these types of items, as a general scope. But, nonetheless, it seems that the only application of the filter system, near as I have been able to discern from both minis posts and others, he is how users respond to it. Which admittedly is how, at least going by prior posts with Mooney in the last thread, most issues are determined.

I can probably give him more detailed breakdown when I get home, however that will be in a few hours.

 No.2822

File: 1538618010882.jpg (486.45 KB, 1233x745, 1233:745, bowl-of-magical-girls.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Oh, BTW, I'm happy that we rejected the rule that would have prohibited genitals only if they were "anatomic" (whatever that meant).

 No.2823

>>2821
>the rule does not change.
The text of the rule doesn't change, but the interpretation of the rule does.  Vague gray areas become disallowed without the filter but allowed with the filter.

 No.2824

File: 1538618692347.jpg (5.82 MB, 2500x1688, 625:422, annarom.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2823
yeah, see, that doesn't sound better to me in any capacity. That just seems to me that it will increase the likelihood that people who don't intend to break a rule will end up band, and people who post extremely sexual or explicit content won't be, purely because of public opinion at large or whatever.
Seems to me that the entire issue will simply expand. Mooney says that's with the NSFW filter on, my lizard picture would be okay somehow, but never actually expands on why. The reason for why it is explicit to begin with was already questionable, but now we have to ask why it is suddenly allowed too.

Essentially, as far as my understanding goes, we will still have the same problems with or without the filter.
Personally, I would prefer a simple no outright explicit content, IE visible genitalia or imprinting up and genitalia, with the NSFW filter, and you can keep your big and difficult to interpret rules for without. At the very least, it won't disrupt my posting, as I intend to just simply use the NSFW filter at all times, just to be on the safe side. Because, after all, when the rules as vague as it is, why not go to the sign that is supposedly more Broad in the users favor.

 No.2825

File: 1538619162592.jpg (1.67 MB, 1150x2458, 575:1229, Aphrodite_Braschi_Glyptoth….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2807
>I appreciate that you haven't been posting naked girls here lately.
Why? Do you not appreciate the nude female form?  ;-)

 No.2826

>>2824
>The reason for why it is explicit to begin with was already questionable, but now we have to ask why it is suddenly allowed too.
The idea is simple:
- If it is questionable whether the image complies with the rules, then post it with the NSFW flag.  
- If the image clearly violates the rules, then don't post it at all.
- If the image clearly complies with the rule, then you can post it without the NSFW flag.

 No.2827

File: 1538619453142.png (1.1 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100257.png) ImgOps Google

Just change the NSFW tag to a 'Questionable Content' tag that encompasses anything that may be something someone would not be comfortable scrolling past while standing in line at the grocery store.

Now it doesn't have an association to purely sexual content but anything that someone may not want to see for any variety of reasons.

Problem solved. Yeesh.

 No.2828

File: 1538619528730.jpg (3.09 MB, 3000x1688, 375:211, adineshower.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2826
Problem is the rules are horrendously vague. many items which I post could be considered a violation of the rules. I would have thought that Toy's naked girl with only hair covering tits would be a violation of the rules, however that has been stated as being fine.
meanwhile, a post which near I can tell doesn't have any sexual connotations whatsoever, in the form of the lizard with a simple collar and Leash, is not allowed.
as stated I have absolutely no metric whatsoever to tell what is going to be questionable, and what is not going to be questionable.

 No.2829

File: 1538619774521.jpg (61.84 KB, 720x720, 1:1, JPEG_20180928_151812.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2828
You forgot a shirt that literally says 'Sub as fuck.'

 No.2830

>>2828
>meanwhile, a post which near I can tell doesn't have any sexual connotations whatsoever, in the form of the lizard with a simple collar and Leash, is not allowed.
The sexual connotation is the text "sub as fuck", a reference to BDSM.

 No.2831

>>2825 it's fine, as long as equivalently lewd non-standard material is also allowed

 No.2832

>>2829
And that makes it sexual how?
>>2830
See above. Doesn't make it sexual.

 No.2833

File: 1538620072705.jpg (15.64 KB, 460x276, 5:3, A-pup-harp-seal-searches--….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2831
Nudity isn't inherently lewd.

 No.2834

>>2832
It makes it suggestive.  

 No.2835

File: 1538620301249.png (30.15 KB, 309x357, 103:119, charmeleon-head.png) ImgOps Google

Hmm, under the newly adopted rules, maybe that image would be allowed even without the NSFW tag.

 No.2836

File: 1538620326143.jpg (117.17 KB, 733x1002, 733:1002, 140817455851.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2827
I second this motion.

 No.2837

>>2834
What exactly do you mean by suggestive. Because I wouldn't really consider its suggestive, certainly not any more suggestive then a girl who's literally naked with only her hair covering her breasts.
With that example I'd consider it extremely tame.

 No.2838

>>2835
Could be. Though the new rules are still vague. I'd wager it's probably okay, now, though. But, without it being explicitly said to me, I don't really want to risk posting it again.

 No.2839

>>2837
It's a direct reference to sexual activity.  Same as if the shirt said "I like it in the missionary position".

 No.2840

>>2839 missionaries are not inherently sexual

 No.2841

>>2839
So do you think any reference at all to sexual content should be banned? Is it not okay to have a shirt that says I like it in the missionary position. That strikes me as a more radical position than even the original stricter rule suggestions

 No.2842

File: 1538620677068.png (163.24 KB, 716x1011, 716:1011, tail-on-fire-2.png) ImgOps Google

>>2838
Here, I photoshopped out the text for you.  That should solve the problem.

 No.2843

File: 1538620723724.jpg (50.63 KB, 637x630, 91:90, fluffy-pure-white-lion-hea….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2840
>missionaries are not inherently sexual
Gosh, what type of boring missionaries do you have in your area?

 No.2844

File: 1538620786124.png (1.14 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100331.png) ImgOps Google

>>2832
Noonim. Stop. Seriously.

Look. I could go on here and post how naked tits are just 'A naked animal, cause humans are animals!' and try to be all bullshit​ technical to bend the rules, but YOU know I'd be full of shit, I know I'd be full of shit and everyone in this thread would know I'd be full of shit.

BDSM is designed to be sexual by nature. It's part of the package. Are you suggesting the Charizard is just saying he identifies as a submarine or a foot long sandwich?

Because if you are, everyone reading that post KNOWS you're full of shit. Just fucking own up to it. It won't kill you.

I post big tit chicks because I think they're sexually stimulating, which matches the tone of most of my posts. I will completely and one hundred percent admit that. I'm not going to try and pretend I have an ulterior motive here. I'm not going to insult people's intelligence by assuming they will fall for something that stupid.

 No.2845

>>2843 dominicans

 No.2846

>>2842
If I recall correctly, the issue one of the mods had, at least, was the leash, not the shirt.
near as I could tell the shirt didn't even play a part in it. It was more of a blush combined with the leash, at least according to him.

When I get home I could grab some provide a direct quote on that.

 No.2847

File: 1538621122909.jpg (15.54 KB, 312x400, 39:50, burn_witch__burn__by_kitis….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2834
>suggestive

Rule 1:  suggestive content is ok, obscene is not.

>>2839
>like it in missionary position

This is ok under rule 1, and "sub as fuck" being similar should also be ok pursuant to Rule 1.

However, Rule 3:  do not post fetishistic content that crosses the line into being sexually charged;

The "sub" part makes it fetishistic and therefore merely being suggestive separates it from being ok as suggestive not obscene to Not ok as "sexually charged".

This is a double standard that exists for no conceivable reason than to make me uncomfortable.

The majority likes this, which makes this a hostile place, to me.

It took a little while to get under my skin but, i'm feeling very ostracized and it's not a good feeling at all.

I doubt anyone who doesnt like fetish content can possibly feel as uncomfortable by seeing Noom's cute sub as fuck dragon as knowing that the majority here despises me for liking it.  But, its the tyrany of democracy and there are other places to be, where i am not despised by the majority.

 No.2848

>>2844
I really don't appreciate the hostility. If you don't have an argument, why not just say that? Why resort to insulting accusations.
I think I've been exceptionally clear exactly why I believe what I believe. I really don't appreciate such a snide comments, assuming the absolute worst when it comes to my intentions.
I'm not suggesting you have any kinds of ulterior motives, I've never said any such accusations towards you. I've never said you say anything other than you directly yourself post. There's absolutely no call whatsoever to make such hostile assumptions of.

 No.2849

File: 1538621295278.png (150.15 KB, 716x1011, 716:1011, tail-on-fire-3.png) ImgOps Google

>>2846
Oh man, Noonim, you're really testing my photoshopping skills, but here you go, no leash.

 No.2850

>>2847 quoting
>This is ok under rule 1, and "sub as fuck" being similar should also be ok pursuant to Rule 1.
>
However, Rule 3:  do not post fetishistic content that crosses the line into being sexually charged;

The "sub" part makes it fetishistic and therefore merely being suggestive separates it from being ok as suggestive not obscene to Not ok as "sexually charged".

This is a double standard that exists for no conceivable reason than to make me uncomfortable.

 No.2851

>>2849
Just remembered, the take me line was also a contributor. and of course, the color was mentioned, though it was said to be a okay item provided it isn't compounded with other factors.

 No.2852

>>2847
>This is a double standard that exists for no conceivable reason than to make me uncomfortable.
It exists because lots of fetish content makes other people uncomfortable.

 No.2853

>>2852
Right, which is the issue: only what makes the so called majority uncomfortable is not allowed.

 No.2854

>>2853 is not even necessarily the majority, literally anyone who feels like reporting

 No.2855

>>2852
Being singled out makes me a lot more uncomfortable.

Look, this is going in circles.  I'm just going to go now.

 No.2856

File: 1538621918510.jpg (564.89 KB, 850x1199, 850:1199, 1499562148441.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2847
Also, you seem to be assuming that most people here don't have fetishes, and that the fetish rule only impacts a small minority of posters.  That's probably false.  Lots of people (including myself) have fetishes.  But people have different fetishes.  People generally don't like hearing about fetishes that they don't share.  So it's not like a "mainstream majority" is oppressing a "fetish-enjoying" minority.  Rather it's that everyone forgoes posting about their own fetish, in order to avoid having other fetishes shoved in their face.

 No.2857

File: 1538621961253.jpg (73.99 KB, 468x383, 468:383, cheetah-640090_960_720-1-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2806
Honestly, I really appreciate this Toybox.

I don't like that some people feel like they are being forced to hide or not show who they are, but at the same time, I do like the more pg-ness of this site. I try to be tolerant, but I do look away from a lot of pictures that various people have posted.

I feel like a bit of a prude for it sometimes, and I wonder how much of it is just my own hang ups from my own insecurities, but that doesn't change that I do like not seeing too much nudity or crude stuff.

 No.2858

>>2856 then don't shove mainstream sexuality in people's faces either. It's not a difficult concept.  :twi7:

 No.2859

File: 1538622386345.jpeg (11.54 KB, 225x225, 1:1, images (3).jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2828
>I would have thought that Toy's naked girl with only hair covering tits would be a violation of the rules


I personally think it should have been, or now at least be posted with the filter. And I also think this goes back to how Moony said he really doesn't know how to judge what is sfw and what is not, which in that case, I think we all need to help as a community and come up with that standard.

And it seems like we are getting there, albeit with slow progress.

 No.2860

>>2854
Exactly.
>>2859
At the moment, it seems that it is largely dependent on what is or is not recorded. I don't really like having to report things to determine what should or should not be allowed, as I believe it tends to result in busy bodies controlling most things.

As I said in response to the stinky fish question, earlier: personally, I'm not going to say anything, as I wouldn't want anything said about me.

 No.2861

File: 1538622627049.png (1.15 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100405.png) ImgOps Google

>>2848
It's not hostility. I'm not mad at you. I just don't like this running around the bush thing.

"What does a sapient creature wearing a collar have to do with sexual acts?"

This is the type of question you ask to someone whom you think is too stupid to connect a couple dots, and quite frankly as much as I like to say people are idiots, I don't think anyone on this board is dumb enough to justify being asked a question like that.

No one is saying your picture should be banned. Quite frankly I consider it vanilla as fuck. But it's not my call. If they want you to tag it, just man up and say "Alright, I'll tag it." Don't sit here and try to justify that it's got some sort of merit outside of the fantasy fap material it was designed to be.

 No.2862

>>2856
See, this right here is largely why I wouldn't want to forbid such content. given that I know other people have different tastes, different things they don't like, and different things they do, I wouldn't want to since they're based on subjective notions. I would overall prefer if people were allowed to post what they want, and self moderate when it comes to posting disruptive content. I think that results in an overall healthier community, on the whole.

 No.2863

>>2861
and I don't like dishonest accusations and outright lies about my personal character. Please stop that. It's never conductive to a productive conversation. I've stated before, and I will say it again, I have no interest in the BDSM fetish as a whole. I don't care for pet play, and I don't really care for sub or Dom. The closest I ever get is a like for some levels of bondage, but I wouldn't really count a caller as such, as it doesn't really restrict to you unless tides to something specifically.

your last paragraph seems to be an outright misunderstanding of everything that has gone on leading to this point, so I don't think I'll even bother replying to it. Either you're entirely misinformed, or you're out right, again, lying about the situation.

 No.2864

File: 1538622880691.png (1.05 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20180929-095858.png) ImgOps Google

>>2849
Put an axe in his hand, give him a beard and change the text to "AND MY AXE!"

If you're gonna go, go big.

 No.2865

>>2858
>them don't shove mainstream sexuality in people's faces either. It's not a difficult concept.
Well, it's not like "mainstream sexuality" is present as a something real in most non-fetish suggestive images.  They're just suggesting something sexual without specifying exactly what.  It could be just vanilla sex, or it be BDSM or something else.

It's like if we had a cake rule saying "you can post pics of cake, but only undecorated cake without any icing/frosting/etc".  

 No.2866

File: 1538623090930.gif (4.58 MB, 480x270, 16:9, giphy (1).gif) ImgOps Google

>>2860
Well I was thinking more that we, all of us, keep an eye on how these new rules are working and not working, and keeop having conversations about it.

You, Boat, and Lost have brought up fair points and I think we can keep working to try and improve those too.

 No.2867

File: 1538623108914.png (1.11 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100316.png) ImgOps Google

>>2863
Obviously there is a misunderstanding here because you know as well as I do that if there's one thing I don't like it's dishonesty.

So if you're going to tell me I'm misinformed then please inform me of what it is you're actually trying to do, because from my position it looked as if you were complaining that your subby charazard pic might be flagged as NSFW.

 No.2868

>>2863
Toybox isn't lying (i.e., intentionally saying a falsehood, with intent to deceive).  There's just a miscommunication going on.

 No.2869

>>2866
that's one thing I have to definitely say in favor of voting system we have here. I think we could quite easily see it as well, given the prior holy. Before, it seems people didn't want stricter rules when it came to fetishistic content. But, now, we've chosen the laxer rule when it comes to that.

 No.2870

>>2867
That is what I am complaining of. However, you attributed assumptions of my intentions that we're not there. You assume that the reason I was doing that. You made a baseless accusations, not found it on any actual claim position, but your own negative assumptions of my character.
And, I think I've dealt with you long enough for you to understand, there is very little I dislike more than untrue accusations.

>>2868
That's fair. My point was more that's what toy box has been saying here is simply untrue, and I would have assumed, easily verifiable as untrue just given a simple look at my prior posts, and what I have expressly stated.
Though the last paragraph in the prior post was more to do with I'm misunderstanding of the circumstances leading up to this complaint overall. As I said to that, misinformed on the subject.

 No.2871

>>2865 I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this.  The problem with fetish stuff is supposedly the fact that it's sexual.  So allowing other sexual stuff makes no sense.

 No.2872

File: 1538623502861.png (883.45 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100512.png) ImgOps Google

>>2870
Then what was your intent when asking such a dumb question?

Inform me, since I'm apparently mistaken.

 No.2873

File: 1538623643405.png (846.47 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20180927-085310.png) ImgOps Google

>>2871
>The problem with fetish stuff is supposedly the fact that it's sexual.

No. The problem with fetish stuff is that it tends to make people uncomfortable. The fact that it's sexual in nature has basically nothing to do with it.

It's the same reason you don't post gore or videos of people getting killed.

 No.2874

>>2873 so by extension you mean that no one is uncomfortable with conventional sexuality...  Right...

 No.2875

File: 1538623863312.gif (597.19 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, tumblr_p846j22SIZ1rlrlkqo1….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2874
Look up the definition of the word "conventional", read your post again, think about what you just said for a moment and get back to me.

 No.2876

>>2875 you said the problem is that fetish tends to make people uncomfortable.  That is reason enough to ban it.  So a vocal group being uncomfortable with conventional sexuality should logically be sufficient to have it banned as well.

 No.2877

File: 1538624053336.png (1.91 MB, 1920x1382, 960:691, cgadine2.png) ImgOps Google

>>2872
I do not believe text to be sexual just because of the shirt. That was my intention to point out. The question I was intending to ask was simply whether or not a shirt makes something sexual. I do not believe it does.
if you believe otherwise, I would prefer you say so, rather than claiming that I am quote "full of shit", seeming to use a gross misunderstanding of my position.
I've been very clear with my position from the start. I've stated multiple times that I do not believe that it is sexual in nature.

but, of course, that isn't the contention anyway, as it isn't in violation of the rules for being sexual, regardless. This is more of a misunderstanding likely due to not having followed the situation, but, regardless, the item in question was in violation of the fetish rules. Not the sexual conduct rules. otherwise, you could argue, as I had done multiple times, that images of women with naked bodies with only their hair covering their tits is far more sexual in nature. Yet, it appears that was allowed, and outright expressly so.

 No.2878

>>2875
I don't think this is productive Toybox.

And to be fair, we don't have to be conventional, since this a website.

 No.2879

>>2871
>>2874
The issue is that, in general, the more specific the sexual thing is described, the more uncomfortable it is.  So posting going into detail abuot mainstream sexual acts are just as verboten as posts with fetish details.

 No.2880

>>2873
That makes it far more confusing why you were referencing the sexuality of the item, just moments prior.

 No.2881

>>2877
You can at least that the text "sub as fuck" has BDSM (and thereby sexual) connotations, right?

 No.2882

>>2881
>at least that
*at least agree that

 No.2883

>>2881
Not significant ones to be labeled questionable, in my opinion. Much in the same way as somebody's prior example of a shirt that says I like to have sex in the missionary position.
The shirt could be argued as h
Referencing sexual content, but I don't think it to be significant enough to Warrant anything.

 No.2884

>>2881
Wait so, no one can be submissive unless engaged in BDSM sexuality.

That makes a lot of sense, Not.

 No.2885

>>2876
Exactly.

If this is to be a nice tidy SFW site, that would be consistent, fair, and perfectly Pony.

Why discriminate?

 No.2886

File: 1538624763340.png (425.82 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2883
Though, come to think of it, people with the fetish have said that it's less of a specific sexual item, as it is a lifestyle, so I'm not even entirely sure that it really is a reference at that point. Or rather a reference to a sexual item.

 No.2887

File: 1538624881135.png (350.99 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_normal_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2885
I wouldn't have a complaint with that, as it would apply to standard evenly over everything.

 No.2888

>>2884
There's a reason why I said "connotation" instead of "denotation".

 No.2889

>>2887

But, that's not going to happen because mostly vanilla lewdness is what the electors here have chosen, and it's "ok" to exclude those who want fairness because we're offensive monsters who have to pretend to be "normal".

This is exactly the opposite of pony.

 No.2890

>>2888
Ah you must be the "semantics" anon that Manleys always bitching about.

 No.2891


 No.2892

>>2890
Semantics is ultimately quite important, as it did not significant meaning behind statements.

 No.2893

>>2891
Yes i saw that circular sophistry.

See
>>2858
>>2876

 No.2894

>>2892
Yes but regardless of whatever "denotation" means, saying "sub" is a term that is linked exclusively to bdsm ("connotation") is just inaccurate.

 No.2895

>>2889
Lost, as far as I can tell, were not excluding, were trying to include. Everyone is talking and trying to have a conversation and trying to work things out. What more do you want exactly?

I'm sorry for being frustrated, but why are you acting like you are being attacked?

 No.2896

File: 1538625561285.jpg (60.53 KB, 640x480, 4:3, cowe-with-doge.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2879
>The issue is that, in general, the more specific the sexual thing is described, the more uncomfortable it is.  So posting going into detail abuot mainstream sexual acts are just as verboten as posts with fetish details.
I see a potential rebuttal: "The rules allow vanilla suggestive images to include more sexual detail than fetish images".  But being fetish is itself a sexual detail, and a substantial one.

 No.2897

File: 1538625770120.jpg (64.53 KB, 316x297, 316:297, Screenshot_20181002-100457.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2878
That isn't what I was getting at and obviously they didn't actually look up the definition.

con·ven·tion·al
adjective
based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.
"a conventional morality had dictated behavior"
synonyms: normal, standard, regular, ordinary, usual, traditional, typical, common More

1. (of a person) concerned with what is generally held to be acceptable at the expense of individuality and sincerity.


Knowing this, lets look at it in the context of the post:

>so by extension you mean that no one is uncomfortable with conventional sexuality

Essentially what you are saying here is that people are uncomfortable with sexuality that is specifically meant to be toned down to be as inoffensive and generic as possible.

Which basically means to me one of two things:

A) You're specifically saying you're offended by things that are specifically designed to be generic and non-offensive just to try and prove a point.

Or

B) You actually are offended by it in which case such a thing is so rare and uncommon that expecting an entire group of people to change​ their entire way of life to cater to you is a bit absurd.


It's literally like saying, "I am offended by the color green, so nobody should greentext."

 No.2898

>>2897
I don't know about you, but, I think my mother would be more shocked at the half naked lady picture, then a lizard with a leash.

 No.2899

>>2894
Fair. As I said earlier, after having thought about it, I don't think that the term denotes a sexual nature, necessarily, as it seems evident that it can be both a lifestyle and mearly sexual.

 No.2900

File: 1538626102443.gif (207.97 KB, 320x180, 16:9, a6f08e8e8a749ba910213d8ddd….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2898
Yes. Because the half naked lady picture it would fall under the category of what is considered conventional sexuality.

I know someone who would find a picture of a B2 Bomber to basically be porn. Your mother would see an airplane.

If anything you just reinforced my point.

 No.2901

>>2900
Okay, so, in the argument of common offense taken at a post, it would seem that items which are not conventionally regarded as sexual in nature, or simply not an issue.

 No.2902

File: 1538626500259.png (1.1 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100257.png) ImgOps Google

>>2901
What I'm saying is that a fetish is basically taking something that would normally not be considered conventionally sexual but giving it sexual connotations.

Pokemon - Not conventionally sexual.
A collar and leash - Not conventionally sexual.
A shirt that says - "Sub as fuck" mildly sexual.

A Pokemon wearing a leash while wearing a shirt and offering said leash while stating "Please take me." is taking something or multiple things and, through it's presentation, making them sexual in nature.

Composition. Matters. You can buy all the materials to make a bomb at Walmart. Individual​ly the materials are harmless. Arranged in a certain way, that changes.

You can't just ignore context.

On the flip side, something that is blatantly sexual regardless of context is generally not considered a fetish since it's content is easily recognizable as sexual by a vast majority of people.

 No.2903

>>2895
What do i want?

I want the same treatment for lewdness regardless of real or imagined connections to fetishes.

I want people to stop trying to convince me that this is a wrong concept.

People who want to see lewd titties that would shock their mothers and grandmothers but exclude a lizard on a leash because bdsm "makes them uncomfortable".  Those titty pics make me uncomfortable, and you too if i read correctly.  Why should they stay while things i like have to go?

Its pure hypocrisy.  And clinging to "comfort for the majority" as a justification is self-righteousness.

 No.2904

File: 1538626841785.jpg (47.43 KB, 768x576, 4:3, 42307938aec4ba7f3983ff3314….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2903
Alright. I think that's something that is fair and we should try to aim for.

I do not understand, however, why you thought people were against you and not merely the content. Maybe I'm not seeing something, or missed something in earlier threads.

 No.2905

File: 1538626897120.png (1.11 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100316.png) ImgOps Google

>>2903
You're hardly the only one that represses sexual deviancy for the common good.

I have a slew of fetishes that would be considered unacceptable or would make people uncomfortable and I have never posted images of them, nor spoken about them unless it was directly related to a particular topic.

You ARE getting equal treatment. Because the rest of us do the same thing.

 No.2906

File: 1538627168038.png (15.85 KB, 112x131, 112:131, 37.png) ImgOps Google

This character I used to post? I have quite a few pictures that still fall within the rules but would probably make some people feel uncomfortable with, so I do not post them.

I have like at least 3 or four shots of her with cum on her face though since it's black and white it's not that blatant, but I do not post them specifically because while showing her in a bikini is sexual, it's not out of line with what you might actually see on a beach. However, even if she's wearing a suit and tie, an image of her with cum splattered all over her face would probably cause some people to get upset.

So I don't do it.

 No.2907

>>2904
People have been making a number of correlations between the actual content and unfair assumptions about the one posting it.

Also i had a very odd (and not transparent at all) mod action against me today that to put it as politely as i can, fucked me up in the head and i think i'm having a meltdown.  If i seem to be behaving offensively i'm sorry.

stupid thing dumped my name.  lp.

 No.2908

>>2902
I don't think I am. Rather, I think you are very selective in what arguments you are engaging in here

I say that because you've just argued a point to my favor.

I suppose it is possible you simply aren't paying much attention to the lot, and are just out to argue for kicks, but, again, I've made my position clear here. You seem to be arguing for me, here.

 No.2909

>>2898 same

 No.2910

>>2904
I think that was clear from his position at the start. He specifically cited unfair treatment from the beginning. And most his arguments were specifically around that.

 No.2911

File: 1538627774046.jpg (64.53 KB, 316x297, 316:297, Screenshot_20181002-100457.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2908
That your picture is fetish material?

I was not aware that was your position, but okay.

 No.2912

>>2910
Then I think I missed that bit.
>>2907
Maybe you need a bit of a break if it is making you feel like that...

If you feel like it wasn't transparent, I would recommend asking for clarification and to be explained.

 No.2913

>>2911
That it isn't inherently sexual in nature, and besides that, offensive to a higher degree than an intently sexual picture like a naked girl with only hair covering her tits.

If you want my position, it's been written multiple times. I think it should be easier to do than the time it takes to make some post saying I'm "full of shit"

 No.2914

>>2913
>an intently sexual picture like a naked girl with only hair covering her tits.
Why do you think that is sexual?  Nudity isn't inherently sexual.

 No.2915

File: 1538628800529.png (1.1 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100257.png) ImgOps Google

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding my position here.

I'm not saying some images are bad or that some are better than others, or that fetishes in general are bad.

Honestly the only thing that is irking me is that people are trying to use examples of things that most people wouldn't 'get', then act confused and offended that most people don't get it.

Boobs? Everyone understands boobs.
Butts? Everyone understands butts.

Getting plowed by a horse? Not everyone gets that.

Wanting to be walked around on a leash? Not everyone gets that.

Feeling comfortable in diapers? Not everyone gets that.

It's honestly very simple.

 No.2916

>>2915 not everyone has to get something for it to be allowed

 No.2917

File: 1538629155435.png (1.14 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100331.png) ImgOps Google

>>2916
I didn't say anything about that.

I'm saying if your going to post something you think a lot of people may be like "Uh.... Why?" about, and they prefer you to just put a flag on it to warn people, "Hey, this image may be slightly confusing to you." I do not see the harm in that.

It's just common courtesy.

 No.2918

>>2917 I agree with you.  But according to rules it wouldn't be allowed regardless.

 No.2919

>>2914
The pics referred to are definitely sexual.

>>2915
Not everyone wants to see boobs, and apparently people "get" those other things as far more sexual than they really are.

You do realize that itt it's been deeply humiliating to be told what i think because thats what things mean, that don't necessarily mean those things?

 No.2920

>>2912
Oh yes well about that, it was clarified well enough in the ban notice and i'm not sure whether i was wrong or the mod was, but i was told we dont just unilaterally delete posts and issue bans anymore and it was jarring.

As to taking a break, i keep trying all goddamned day but i keep coming back, and keep getting my feelings hurt and i don't know what to do.  It's stupid.

 No.2921

File: 1538629689333.png (1.1 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100257.png) ImgOps Google

>>2919
LP, I like furries because I like the idea of being treated like an animal. Pet play is one of my biggest fetishes. But do you think that if I post furries people are going to understand that? No. They think I want to go to furry conventions in a costume and fuck other costumed people. That is just what comes along with what furries are generally known for.

I'm​ aware of that before I post them. People can't always be inside your head and it's not practical to slap a disclaimer on something every time you think people are going to be confused.

If nothing else, just accept some people aren't going to understand you and if they get weirded out by it that's their problem. You know your reasons for it and that's all that really matters.

People accuse me of thinking things I don't think all the time and half the time I don't bother to correct them because they aren't going to listen to me anyway.

Being AWARE of the general stigmas does not mean you have to follow them. However you can't just ignore them and pretend like they shouldn't apply to you. Everyone has to face stigmas everywhere they go.

Hell, every time I tell people I'm a transsexual I have to quickly go, "But I'm not an SJW that is going to get triggered that you have a dick, calm down." because that is what the majority of people assume all trans people are like. It's stupid, but that is the reality we live in.

 No.2922

>>2915
I think people make the assumptions as a result of you claiming other people are quote "full of shit".

I find it quite difficult to get a grasp on why you are here, quite frankly, as nearly every time you supposed to reply, it doesn't seem to actually be in reply to any arguments made.

 No.2923

>>2914
In the particular example, I don't think it's a particularly tasteful piece of art, or an anatomical study. It's a picture of an anime girl with massive tits with only her hair covering her tits while she faces directly at the camera, holding a sniper over her crotch.
But okay, let's work with this.

why is a lizard with a leash more sexual than that?

Personally, I prefer both be allowed. But, as is, I just don't like the standard being for one side, but not the other.

 No.2924

File: 1538631526135.png (1.11 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100316.png) ImgOps Google

>>2923
I think both should be allowed and if there is a questionable content tag, it would apply to both.

>>2922
You asked a really silly question in such a way that it was very hard to believe you were doing so in good faith. You still never told me what your intention actually was.

 No.2925

>>2923
The lizard is not more sexual, nooms.

The lizard being sexual at all makes it violate Rule 3 while the vanilla thing has to go so far as obscene to violate Rule 1.

Seems the original wording i argued against was much better than what we ended up with, and i just read through the constitution.  It's a pretty short document and this disparity violates the constitution through and through.

When i pull myself together i'm going to make a constitutional invalidation argument to Moons about the new rules, and when he denies my petition i'll move on from here.

 No.2926

File: 1538631724595.png (1.07 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20180927-085530.png) ImgOps Google

>>2925
I think you're​ taking this far too personally.

 No.2927

>>2925
>The lizard being sexual at all makes it violate Rule 3 while the vanilla thing has to go so far as obscene to violate Rule 1.
This is the problem.

 No.2928

>>2924
I was establishing a point. Just because you don't understand why I was establishing the point doesn't mean you should respond with such a Negative hostility. It's incredibly rude to say somebody's full of shit. it's generally considered rude to make such negative assumptions about them, regardless, but especially in that way.
I asked a question for a very specific reason, and one that you evidently disagreed with, as you went on later to say that you thought both a shirt that says I like to f*** in the missionary position is sexual in nature, as well as the lizard shirt.

 No.2929

File: 1538632347994.jpg (64.53 KB, 316x297, 316:297, Screenshot_20181002-100457.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2928
>as you went on later to say that you thought both a shirt that says I like to f*** in the missionary position is sexual in nature, as well as the lizard shirt.

Can you link that post because I don't remember commenting at all on that.

 No.2930

>>2925
I agree with you, however, the conversation we're having, at least as far as this particular argument goes, seems to be built around the assumption that it is sexual. And, it seems, that was Toy Boxes claim as well.

the current rules formatting, overall, I don't really have a particular issue with. Though, evidently, there are people who believe that the lizard picture would still violate the current rules, they do seem to be laxer than the ones we had before. personally, I wouldn't mind getting rid of the fetish rule entirely, and simply forbidding explicit content, but, I doubt that will come to play, unfortunately.

 No.2931

>>2929
When I get home, I'll see if I can. Though, I don't really appreciate, in any case, regardless of whether or not you did or didn't reply to that particular item, the general form of hostility and insulting that you took to.
I have not called you "full of shit", or made other such hostile accusations of you. I would prefer you not do the same to me. If you have a question of my intentions, ask me it directly. There's no need to be insulting.

 No.2932

File: 1538632826465.png (1.1 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100257.png) ImgOps Google

>>2931
>I have not called you "full of shit", or made other such hostile accusations of you.

You called me a liar.

> If you have a question of my intentions, ask me it directly.

I have.

Three times.



Also, as a side note I never actually said you were full of shit in that post.

 No.2933

>>2932
I did. After you claimed I was full of s***.
But, you are right, I shouldn't stoop to your level.
Being an asshole to an asshole only makes you like an asshole, so sure. That was a mistake.

And I answered it when you asked, again, after you said I was quote "full of shit"

Do you understand the concept of linear time?

 No.2934

File: 1538633138140.png (846.47 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20180927-085310.png) ImgOps Google

>>2933
I didn't actually. If you read the post again I never said you were full of shit.

 No.2935

>>2932
Just so we are clear here, you do understand that my issue when I say I would prefer you directly asked me, is in reference to you not directly asking me, but rather saying I am full of shit, right?

 No.2936

File: 1538633185629.png (1.15 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100405.png) ImgOps Google

>>2935
Again, I didn't actually say that.

 No.2937

>>2934
Implied, then. I can't really quote while on the road, so I'll have to wait till I get home, but I'm happy to assume you're right here. Regardless it's a dick of a thing to do, and I would appreciate if you didn't do it in the future. It's not productive to a conversation, and it makes me Brinkley aggressive, as I feel like I have been personally attacked.
Especially given the way that the entire argument was framed. You started off with the premise quote "Noonim stop", as if trying to say, based on your own complete misunderstanding of my entire intentions, that everything I was doing was completely facetious.

Look, it's not like I'm even asking for an apology at this point. I never really cared for that sort of thing. I just want you to set least understand why I consider it a dick move, and why I am insulted, and certainly would never do it to you.

 No.2938

>>2936
Way to Dodge the issue here. That's not the point. You keep doing this, I'm inclined to think at this point you don't even care about what my position is, you're just out to be a dick to me. Not sure why, maybe it's something I did to you in the past, but I really don't care for it, and I would ask you to please just stop and gauging me, if you're not going to deal with me in an honest manner.

 No.2939

>>2937
>Brinkley aggressive
:pinkie6:

 No.2940

File: 1538633451801.png (883.45 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100512.png) ImgOps Google

>>2937
>>2938
You literally just said you would never do the same thing to me but here you go just straight up assuming my intent and then getting mad about your own assumptions.

I'm not being a dick to you. At all. You're just getting butthurt over things you think are being said but aren't.

 No.2941

File: 1538633787430.png (72.62 KB, 292x198, 146:99, 4 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2940
I think the implication of >>2844 is pretty damn clear when you outright say; "Because if you are, everyone reading that post KNOWS you're full of shit. Just fucking own up to it. It won't kill you."

But whatever. It's clear this isn't a productive conversation, so it's fine.
Next time, I won't bother engaging. It's clear you have no interest in that, so, whatever. I'll just report and move on.

 No.2942

>>2926
How can i not?  Because i find something to be cute and comforting in a non-sexual way, it's been explained to me that it makes people uncomfortable because they want to connect that to scat.

A connection that has nothing to do with sex, my image or me but i'm a monster.

You explained it yourself, as though i don't understand stigma.  Several (or one?) anons and you have pointed out how my preferences make me a monster that makes others uncomfortable.  Stigma is something the rules should not be tailored to foster, and i'm the odd man out.  Of course i take it personally.

>>2938
Nooms please give Toy the benefit of the doubt.  I feel attacked too even though i'm pretty sure no one actually attacked me.  Reread some stuff and be sure, i know i'm very confused here just now.

 No.2943

File: 1538633905073.png (846.47 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20180927-085310.png) ImgOps Google

>>2941
I SAID, "If you were implying that the Charazard was trying to identify as a submarine or a foot long sandwich you would be full of shit."

Were you implying that? Cause if you weren't then that doesn't apply to you, now does it?

 No.2944

>>2844
Actually you do call Nooms full of shit in this post.

Edit:  i see the "if" in there buts its easy to miss.

 No.2945

File: 1538634031077.png (26.72 KB, 344x311, 344:311, 12.png) ImgOps Google

>>2939
On my phone. Fucks up my posts.
>>2943
You also said
>>2844
>"Because if you are, everyone reading that post KNOWS you're full of shit"

But, again, we're done here. You've made your position clear from the start. Shouldn't've engaged from the beginning.

 No.2946

>>2945
Nooms theres an "if" in there thats hard to see.

 No.2947

File: 1538634114091.jpg (287.15 KB, 852x719, 852:719, Screenshot_20180927-085553.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2942
No one said you were a monster, nor did they imply it.

Yeah, there may be some unintentional implications but that is just going to happen.

It's not much of a secret that I enjoy bestiality, but people incorrectly assume that means I'm okay with animal abuse and that is DEFINITELY not the case. But it comes with the territory.

 No.2948

>>2945  I know  It's a whole new level of aggression.

 No.2949

>>2939
What's a Brinkley aggressive?

>>2927
It's astounding that this isn't all that needs be said.

 No.2950

>>2949
>It's astounding that this isn't all that needs be said.
:pinkie11:

 No.2951

File: 1538634364661.jpg (20.85 KB, 175x145, 35:29, 19.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2942
Doesn't matter how many times I re-read >>2844 , it comes out the same way. Hell, from the very start, it was aggressive. It's literally started with
>"Noonim, Stop. Seriously".
And from there, it just goes down hill, with a total mischaracterization of my position, claiming that what I am doing is like saying naked tits should be fine, because humans are animals. and immediately running head first into the 'full of shit' area.

The last paragraph's also pretty shitty, implying that I've got some ulterior motive, and am insulting people's intelligence.

There's very little ways I could possibly read this without it being a personal attack. And, of the ways I could read it with it not being, they're all requiring either sarcasm, satire, or other forms of humor.
And, given Toybox's recent replies on the line, I'm pretty damn confident it wasn't any of that.

 No.2952

>>2947
They kinda did tho.

I post an innocent age play image with no sex in it whatsoever implied or otherwise and it's 1) automatically about sex, 2) its about scat in particular, and 3) i make everyone uncomfortable by having posted it.

That's making me a monster.  And the new rules enable it by setting a brightline standard to exclude it when it's not even fetish or sexual but because stigma says it's scat, i'm the problem.

 No.2953

File: 1538634453506.png (1.14 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100331.png) ImgOps Google

>>2944
Where exactly?

>>2945
You're the one being entirely​ unreasonable here. You insult my intelligence then I make a snarky post in response and then you claim to be the victim here.

I'm trying to be reasonable but your the one accusing me of shit I had no intention of and are acting like it's a fact. You want to talk about dick moves, that is a shining example of one.

 No.2954

>>2946
As said, it's the implication. The "if" doesn't make it better. That just means "if you disagree with me, then what I said is true". It's an ultimatum.
If I say "If you believe fetishistic content should be allowed you're an idiot", in reply to someone arguing exactly that, am I not calling the person who believes that an idiot?

 No.2955

>>2953
I didn't insult your intelligence.
But, whatever. I already reported the post, so there's no point in engaging further with you.

 No.2956

File: 1538634603740.png (883.45 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100512.png) ImgOps Google

>>2955
No. You don't get to do that. You do not get to sit here and act like you're the innocent one when you started this shit.

You are the one being an asshole to me and I'm not gonna sit here and let you do that.

 No.2957

>>2956
I didn't start anything, mate.
But, sure, make up shit. Whatever.

 No.2958

File: 1538634760912.jpg (355.35 KB, 1375x905, 275:181, Screenshot_20180927-085310.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2957
Oh, so you can make up anything you want and pretend it's true then? Is that your special privilege?

Because you seem to use it a lot.

 No.2959

File: 1538634891400.png (163.13 KB, 335x292, 335:292, Capture (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2958
I've explicitly stated my case, and why I believe it to be hostile.
If anyone wants to see further explanation, they can ask me, or refer to the linked post in the case of >>2844
I feel it serves well enough as its own TL;DR.

 No.2960

Just to put the current rules into perspective, a 'tasteful' sex scene from an R rated movie is not against the rules.  So sex itself is not against the rules!  But any material construed as fetish material is against the rules.  Fairness.

 No.2961

>>2951
Even your avatar is sulking Nooms.  Please hang in there i feel as cornered and wronged as you do.

>>2953
We're not all as durable as you are, Toy.  Please do not assume that your ability to accept stigma reflects other people's resilience.

I personally feel really trampled on over this issue.  No one has said "yes, i know that makes you feel bad, marginalized and oppressed.  We don't mean to, lets work this out."  What i've heard is all sorts of arguments about how other people have a right to assume unfair things about me and expect me to suck it up and pretend to be someone else for their "comfort".

I won't.  I can't.  It's because i care about being here, and here being the place described in its own constitution, that i didn't just slink away in hurt when this first came up.

I can be me on Ponychan.  I don't need to be here.  I don't need one more source of social stigma forcing me to act like a normie.  This is Ponyville for crying out loud.  Not a fucking bank or a library.  Its a place for people who are to be tolerated and accepted, not suppressed and forced to yuck-yuckity like a locker room in high school.

 No.2962

>>2954
I agree, she was over the line there.

But now you're just escalating it.   Trust me, i've learned that doesnt work here.

 No.2963

File: 1538635227641.png (883.45 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100512.png) ImgOps Google

>>2959
You started this shit right here:

>>2832

>And that makes it sexual how?

I'm sorry, what? You seriously asked me how the phrase "Sub as fuck" was sexual.

Do I look fucking retarded to you? Did you expect me to go, "Oh gee, now that you mention it a phrase directly related to BDSM has no sexual connotations whatsoever!" because obviously I'm that fucking idiotic to you.

 No.2964

>>2960
Even material that is not fetishistic but can be construed wrongfully as something that in the judgmental person's mind must be fetish.

As put forth somewhere above, sexuality is implicit in fetish so Rule 3 excludes ALL material that can be ruled fetish whether it is or isn't.

 No.2965

File: 1538635346177.png (595.09 KB, 1408x1352, 176:169, a3d2aaf51ee62a96299e7f5978….png) ImgOps Google

>>2960
And this is, notably, with the laxer rules for fetishistic content.
>>2961
I don't think I've quite got the same cause to be upset as far as the rules go, compared to you at least. Mine's mostly built off of the principle of the thing, but, I've not had an interest of mine, a part of who I am, cut off here.
The lizard picture is just a picture I happened to like, much as any other picture I've posted of a cute lizard.
It's gotta be especially shit for you.
>>2962
You're completely right. I'll stop. The mods can deal with it, if it comes to that.
>>2963
Actually, I don't think it's inherently sexual myself.
Which is why I brought it up.

It's... Also distinctly not an insult. Like, at all. In any shape, or form.
But, I just told LP I'd stop, so, I better follow through on that. It's getting late anyhow.

 No.2966

>>2829
Oh look your avatar is wrapped in chains in this post.

That's bdsm.  You can't use that avatar here.

What the chains aren't sexual?  Your own definition of fetish somewhere above defines it.

Go making litmus tests of what is and what isn't sexual, you're over the line.

 No.2967

>>2965
I don't hold any kind of license or right on being more offended than anyone else does.

I think it's complete shit for all of us.

 No.2968

File: 1538635586577.png (1.14 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100331.png) ImgOps Google

>>2965
Well that is what set me off. The question was just so insulting to my intelligence that I got pissed off you would even ask me something like that, which is why I responded like I did.

It came across to me as 'You're fucking stupid, so here's a stupid question for you to answer.'

 No.2969

File: 1538635714369.png (1.1 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100257.png) ImgOps Google

>>2966
Did I ever say I wanted anything to be banned?

Why the hell do people keep putting words in my mouth?

 No.2970

File: 1538635914675.jpg (53.55 KB, 721x883, 721:883, Dd75TX3UQAExwxZ.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2968
Well, I'm sorry it set you off.
My recommendation, and this applies to sarcasm as well, is when you get a question like that, reply to it seriously. It usually works out better. A simple "of course it is" would go a long way, and not result in this massive tangent.

I do genuinely believe that it isn't sexual, in nature, as I explained in both >>2877 and >>2883
Hell, in the same post that was originally taken issue with, >>2832 I told someone else "See above. Doesn't make it sexual".
It was never my intention to ask a stupid question, I believed the question was a genuine item of issue.
I later said, as well, that the fetish itself is not necessarily inherently sexual, in retrospect, as I've seen it stated as a lifestyle,  instead. >>2886

 No.2971

File: 1538636237124.png (1.11 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100316.png) ImgOps Google

>>2970
As far as my definition of fetish goes, all fetishes are inherently sexual.

fet·ish
noun
1.
a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.


So as you can see, asking me, "How is this fetish sexual?" Is kind of like asking "How is water wet?" Or "How is fire hot?" because it is literally part of the definition.

 No.2972

>>2969
Where do i say that you said anything about banning anything?

 No.2973

>>2971
Thing is, I'm not asking how the fetish is sexual.
Though, I do know the whole petplay lot can be a lifestyle as well, but, I'd say it still is sexual.
In any case; I don't believe that a shit saying "sub as fuck" is inherently sexual.
I did say that it could be argued as referencing something sexual, but, that does not make it sexual, in my opinion.

 No.2974

File: 1538636508017.png (1.07 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20180927-085530.png) ImgOps Google

>>2972
I don't know. You said I can't use one of my images here because it alludes to BDSM. Implying that I was trying say any image that has a fetishistic connotation shouldn't be allowed.

It was phrased in such a way as if you were trying to call me out on being hypocritical or something.

 No.2975

>>2971  I'll concede this even though I don't think it's an accurate representation.

Your argument seems to be that conventional sex is fine because it's conventional, regardless of the sex part.  Are you willing to state that R-movie sex is fine, on ponyville, while any reference to possibly fetishistic material is not ok?  If not, can you clarify why one is ok but the other is not?  Do you think everyone would or should just be ok with a sex scene on ponyville?  Like, if I did nothing but post R movie sex scenes here, that would technically not be against the rules, at all.  But if I even reference a fetish, suddenly I run the risk of being warned or banned.  Can you reconcile this?

 No.2976

File: 1538636749519.gif (207.97 KB, 320x180, 16:9, a6f08e8e8a749ba910213d8ddd….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2973
I guess that's where I was confused.

Cause to me, it is inherently sexual. But that isn't a bad thing. To be quite honest if you posted that picture I wouldn't really even give it a second thought. If someone were to point at it and say, "Is this sexual?" I would say yes. But that doesn't mean I would care if it were posted because it's not overly blatant or in-your-face about anything.

But in my opinion it is sexual, jus not to a degree that anyone would actually give a shit.

 No.2977

File: 1538636984452.png (1.14 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100244.png) ImgOps Google

>>2975
I think references to fetishes are fine. Fuck, I don't think they even need to be tagged.

I think anything that blatantly DEPICTS a fetish being enacted should be tagged though, cause not everyone would want to see that.

A character wearing a shirt that says, "I eat shit for breakfast" but is otherwise normal is fine. A picture of someone ACTUALLY eating shit for breakfast should probably not be posted or at worse, tagged for those who may not want to see it.

 No.2978

>>2976
Well, issue is, and that's why we're talking about it, is that it has been complained about. There was evidently enough shit given.
Though, admittedly, I believe it to be a butthurt anon doing the reporting, but, still, the mods removed it, and stood by that decision.

 No.2979

File: 1538637091076.png (48.74 KB, 479x433, 479:433, Hehe.png) ImgOps Google

Man, y'all have been goin' for like six hours.  Go chill and watch YouTube or something.

 No.2980

>>2979
At least it's calmed down somewhat now.

 No.2981

File: 1538637160566.png (1.32 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100434.png) ImgOps Google

>>2978
I'm not a mod so I can't make the rules. I wouldn't have removed it though, personally.

 No.2982

>>2974
Wait wut.

New rules, at issue are 1 and 3:

Rule 1. Suggestive content is generally permitted, but obscene content is not;
Rule 3. Please do not post fetishistic content that crosses the line into being sexually charged;

We've been discussing the disparity in treatment between fetish and non fetish content.

You've been ruthlessly debating against our arguments that it's not fair.  Therefore, you have taken the position that excluding fetish content more stringently than nonfetish sexual content IS fair, and you've done it while posting an avatar wrapped in chains as it smiles.

>>2977
I think you missed the new rules.

 No.2983

>>2977  I agree with you.  So I'm not sure where the problem is.

 No.2984

>>2979
Where you been, we missed you.

 No.2985

>>2979  no!  I'm on vacation!  the best thing to do while on vacation is argue!  jees, don't you know anything...  :twi7:

 No.2986

File: 1538637328706.png (24.12 KB, 254x249, 254:249, Please.png) ImgOps Google

>>2984

Buying groceries, watching people play MtG on Twitch.  I've kinda been watching but I don't have the energy to debate stuff tonight.

>>2985

Well that's pretty fair!

 No.2987

File: 1538637372015.png (1.1 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100257.png) ImgOps Google

>>2982
>Please do not post fetishistic content that crosses the line into being sexually charged

Nothing that has been posted here has been sexually charged.

There is a difference between having a sexual connotation and being sexually charged.

Literally nothing that has been brought up here would violate this rule. Not Noonim's charazard, nor your pinky picture.

 No.2988

>>2981
By all means, but this is why I said earlier that you seem to be grossly misinformed as to the situation here.
I mean, you outright said >>2861
>"No one is saying your picture should be banned".
And then went on to a "just man up and tag it" line, which is frankly not productive. Though, that was the starting position, given >>2806 's "I think it's about moderation and self restraint."

Suffice to say, you complain about people pinning a position on you, but, you came in here with an argument nobody seemed to disagree with from the start, but framed as something against what we were saying.

 No.2989

>>2987

That's your interpretation.

 No.2990

>>2987  I'm not even sure what they mean by "sexually charged".  yet another vague interpret-as-the-mod-chooses description.

 No.2991

>>2990
Well it couldn't say "sexual" because that's already implicit in fetishistic.

I think, it means anything not hooked to a Tens unit for electrostimulation play is acceptable.

 No.2992

>>2987
It wasn't really the point of the conversation, though I'm still questioning whether or not it is now allowed. The point from the start was me explaining why I had taken an issue, to start with. Which, I believe, was why Lost originally referenced it >>2768

 No.2993

File: 1538637747928.jpg (241.63 KB, 852x719, 852:719, Screenshot_20180927-085447.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2989
>>2990
When I see the phrase "sexually charged" it basically means "Intent to cause heavy arousal." Fap material, basically. Despite hinting at a BDSM nature, I don't see anyone getting an instant boner at Noonim's charazard.

Nor the pinkie picture.

They may illicit subtle responses in people based on context, but when I hear the term "Sexually charged" I picture a chick with her crotch pressed up against the camera while trying to spread herself through her clothing. To me, that is sexual​ly charged.

This other shit though? Not in the slightest.

 No.2994

>>2993  That is an interpretation I can live with.  I'm not convinced that's the official interpretation.

 No.2995

File: 1538638079569.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 129.53 KB, 640x960, 2:3, Gurren-Laggan.Yoko-Littne….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2994
Well to go back to the picture that Noonim keeps bringing up.

I'll post it with a spoiler.

Do I think this image is sexually charged? No. Not at all. Yes, she's nude. But her expression, posture and framing do not seem to be lustful in any capacity. Is it a sexually inclined picture? Of course. Sexually charged? Not in my opinion.

 No.2996

>>2993
Considering the rule was written by Moony and selected by majority vote, i'm guessing there will be approx 30 interpretations of what "sexually charged" means.

I doubt yours will be the official one.

 No.2997

>>2995
But is she obscene?

Thats the standard she's to be judged by.  Unless some aspect is fetishistic.

 No.2998

File: 1538638352674.jpg (66.78 KB, 634x700, 317:350, 3ca0d5fcf25e2ff88dcd884eff….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2996
Well I'm assuming the current discussion is about what that term means, so if the one I have is the one most people are happy with, why shouldn't it be the official one?

The entire point is to make the place more comfy for everyone to post in, so I figure the rule definition should be one that makes the most people happy.

 No.2999

File: 1538638422172.jpg (241.63 KB, 852x719, 852:719, Screenshot_20180927-085447.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2997
I don't see that image as obscene. Again, she's not really doing anything inherently sexual. She's just standing there.

 No.3000

>>2995  This too is an interpretation I can live with - assuming it's applied consistently.  The problem up until now is that it hasn't been.  The rules are also written so that it won't be.  YOUR take on it is sensible.  the problem is as stated here: >>2997

 No.3001

>>2999  That girl could literally be having sex and still not be against the rules.

 No.3002

File: 1538638624332.png (64.43 KB, 580x551, 20:19, 26002__suggestive_blushing….png) ImgOps Google

>>2993
>>2994
>>2996

So I'm gonna iterate here that most people voted for no major changes, so we don't want to make major changes.  People seemed to like the new arrangement of rules, but none of them are vast departures from what we were already doing.  These are clarifications on things that weren't explicitly laid out in the original rules.

 No.3003

>>3001
Not around here but even a sweetly sleeping pony is sexually charged with offensive scat if there's a diaper.

Or so it's been lectured to me repeatedly itt.

 No.3004

File: 1538638701943.jpg (Spoiler Image, 727.9 KB, 2000x1600, 5:4, yoko27.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3000
Well, here's another example, which I will spoiler. I'm only using this for example purposes so please keep that in mind.

This image here? I can see this being flagged or removed. Because it does seem sexually charged. Despite the fact that she is wearing way more here, her pose, what she's doing, all of it is very sexual in nature. No one licks a gun just because. Obviously it's supposed to be a proxy for a dick, and anyone who sees this picture can tell that immediately.

So is this image sexually charged? Absolutely.

 No.3005

>>3004
But that won't exclude it.  Rule 1.

Is she obscene?

 No.3006

File: 1538638766675.jpg (47.58 KB, 635x461, 635:461, My feelings on the matter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3004
>No one licks a gun just because.

Someone's never tasted a gun before, clearly.

 No.3007

File: 1538638824957.jpeg (269.72 KB, 1280x847, 1280:847, 505861edf0317111dabe0a83c….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2998
Well, if it's made the official one, by all means.
>>3004
I dunno about you, but I've licked my gun.
Though, I;ve also kissed it, so, maybe I'm a tad messed up by /k/.

 No.3008

>>3002  I think the clarifications need clarifications
>>3004  I agree, but >>3005

 No.3009

>>3002
Its actually looking like they're quite vague.

Exactly how is "sexually charged" different from "obscene"?

 No.3010

File: 1538638878325.jpg (442.47 KB, 1248x870, 208:145, Screenshot_20180927-085453.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3005
I would consider that picture obscene, yes.

It's one of the images from my Yoko folder that I rarely, if ever post specifically for that reason.

 No.3011

>>3010  I don't consider it obscene.  but this is another case where it's in the eye of the beholder.

 No.3012

>>3010
Well then you're banned.

I agree it's obscene.

Why would fetishistic images not be judged by "obscene"?  Is there something in the mind of a normie that makes "sexually charged" somehow a clearer line than "obscene"?

 No.3013

File: 1538639073729.jpeg (54.67 KB, 471x600, 157:200, 27.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3005
This would definitely be excluded under the new rules. I have no doubt that this is interpreted as obscene.

>>3011
It will always be that. It can't be avoided with rules dealing with subjective matters.

 No.3014

>>3011
Oh looks like you're not banned then.

 No.3015

File: 1538639152663.png (1.1 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100257.png) ImgOps Google

>>3011
For me the reason I consider it obscene is because it's basically just masked fellatio.

It's like I told Noonim. If I tried to claim it was anything but that, I would be full of shit because it's blatant to anyone looking at it.

And it's not like the subway pictures that are meant to be more funny than sexual.

 No.3016

>>3013
Of course it's obscene.

What about Noomy's pokemon lizard?  Is it 'sexually charged"?

 No.3017

>>3013
Sure, but ideally, you minimize that with clear standards and definitions as much as possible.
>>3015
Are the subway pictures okay? I always liked them. Had posted one a few times before of Gilda.

 No.3018

>>3017
You mean the penis-replacement sandwiches?

Seem pretty obscene to me, but what do i know, lacking a sandwich fetish i cant judge them.

 No.3019

>>3012
It's because fetishistic images can conjure up negative associations in most people. In regards to common examples, people view diapers on adults as being tied to scat, sub play as being tied to submission and sometimes things like emotional abuse or low self esteem depending on the viewer.

These kinds of things have recently become such a frequent item that many people feel they can't escape these associations.

>>3016
Yes, very much so.

>>3017
I think it should be clear enough that it's easy to tell what you can and can't post, and beyond that I would also hope people take a certain amount of effort into trying to post in a manner that they think agrees with most people.

 No.3020

File: 1538639429713.png (1.32 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100434.png) ImgOps Google

>>3017
Those are a bit more difficult to tackle. In my opinion I would avoid posting them just because most of them ARE basically porn edits. Granted the point is to make them funny by replacing any phalic objects with a giant sandwich, however that doesn't change the fact that it's still overall a sexual act, even if it's being masked.

 No.3021

File: 1538639469811.jpg (64.53 KB, 316x297, 316:297, Screenshot_20181002-100457.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3019
>Yes, very much so.

Can you elaborate?

 No.3022

>>3019
Maybe. But, that's just a part of what we're discussing here. The main reason it's being discussed is an item of prior issue.
If the definition of "sexually charged" is at least stated, it'd probably be easy enough.
>>3020
Yeah, but they're funny.

 No.3023

>>3015  I'm not saying it's appropriate for the site, but I don't think it's obscene.  with a few minor tweaks it certainly could be obscene in my opinion as well.

 No.3024

>>3019
So then if diapers on adults are "tied to scat" then are they automatically "sexually charged"?

 No.3025

File: 1538639622689.png (49.37 KB, 543x404, 543:404, I didn't realize you were ….png) ImgOps Google

>>3008
>>3009

So I'll attempt to clarify the clarifications here, one at a time, but not in order..

>Rule 2. Please do not post content depicting anatomic genitalia, either real or imaginary, gore, extreme violence;

The most straightfoward, it's all there, hopefully no one has questions so I'll skip along to the next one.

>Rule 1. Posting risque and suggestive content is permitted in moderation;

This is really straightforward, a lot of people in the community have posted a lot of things that are...PG-13.  Your five year old kid probably shouldn't be viewing stuff like that yet, but once they're in middle school it's just the kind of thing that's sort of accepted.  Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue stuff, billboards for lingerie or...beaches, whatever sorta advertising.  Stuff that's definitely sexy, but far from pornography.

This is also the stuff that fits into the "NSFW filter", which maybe isn't the best name ever, but some people don't even want this, and we can cater to that minority with a filter.

>Rule 3. Content that concerns sexual fixations that differ from those typical to the general populace and is also offensively obscene to the reasonable person is disallowed;

This is probably the one you're most confused about, which...it makes sense to most people, I dunno.  Yes, in a sense we've separated out people with specific fetishes.  It's as simple as a lot of people not wanting to see it.  When Steam Twist was constantly posting bottom of the barrel DeviantArt fat fetish stuff, people hated it.  The general populace doesn't want to see it.  It makes them uncomfortable.  It's always one person that wants to post it for one reason for another, a few people that are sorta neutral on it, and then a whole bunch of people that don't want it around.

Unfortunately I'm not sure we can cater to the minority that wants to post this stuff via a filter.  For starters, it would be a filter that like 80% of the site has on at all times, at which point why are you even posting those pictures?  No one's going to see them.  It would also be weird to layer filters over each other and have extra tags that people have to apply.  The first filter is a neat idea, but it's already a stretch in terms of ease of use.

>Rule 4. Posting of sexually charged content, designed for and appealing to a predominantly sexual interest, that involves people or imaginary characters under the age of 17, or assumed to be under that age by a reasonable person, is prohibited.

This is about pedophilia.  Rule 4 is pedophilia.  If something could be posted in rule 1, but it contains minors, it is no longer okay.  That's this whole rule.

 No.3026

File: 1538639653124.png (1.31 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100443.png) ImgOps Google

>>3024
Scat is a fetish, and as such has a sexual nature to it.

Would I say your pinkie picture is sexually charged? No. I don't feel that is the case.

But, I'm not a mod, so my opinion isn't worth too much.

 No.3027

>>3025
The rule's changed, though, hasn't it? That seems to be the old rules, I thought.

 No.3028

>>3027
>>3025
yeah these are the old rules

 No.3029

>>3021
It's tough, it's the context that makes it sexually charged. It's a subby charmeleon with blushies on his face asking the viewer to 'take them', while wearing a leash. This kind of furry art is usually drawn as a sexual service and it looks like that's what it is. Pet play is very common in furry subcultures. Anyone familiar with these even in passing (which mos of us are, considering our exposure to it through this site), looking at it would immediately recognize the fetish and it would possibly remind them of the kind of sexual acts this is associated with commonly.

>>3024
To the viewer, yes.

But mostly the point is, and the reason why there are rules adressing this, is that it just makes the viewer uncomfortable. It makes me quite uncomfortable when you post those Diaper pics, LP, and also the tutu stuff, honestly.

I deal with it because I you're an okay dude in my book, but it definitely makes it harder to interact with you.

 No.3030

>>3029  so then how can a fetish-related piece ever not be sexually charged?

 No.3031

File: 1538639970632.png (65.37 KB, 330x510, 11:17, 138457938618.png) ImgOps Google

>>3027
>>3028

Well, we did say we weren't gonna change much, I don't know what you were expecting.

 No.3032

>>3031
I was expecting an explanation of the new rules, since they are quite fundamentally different from the old rules.

 No.3033

>>3030
If it's a paraphilia it has the potential to be sexually charged by definition. The context matters too, though. here, I think especially images specifically designed to tittilated, or images percieved as designed to tittilate will be viewed in a harsher light by the moderating team.

 No.3034

>>3025
You've got the wrong rule 3.

Rule 3. Please do not post fetishistic content that crosses the line into being sexually charged;

Is the one that passed.  I objected to that other one but it had limits of "offensively obscene" while the de jeur rule is "sexually charged".

What's your opinion on Noomy's lizard and my Pinky?

 No.3035

File: 1538640030297.png (1.11 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100316.png) ImgOps Google

>>3029
Oh yes, definitely. But the poster of the image should only be responsible for the image they post. Not the imagination of the people observing the image. If the Charazard is just standing there holding out the leash, and that's​ ALL there is, I don't feel it constitutes being sexually charged. Whatever anyone imagines happening next is in their own mind and is their own responsibility. If it's not directly represented in the image, I don't feel the image should be responsible for it.

That's my take on it.

 No.3036

File: 1538640069949.png (595.09 KB, 1408x1352, 176:169, a3d2aaf51ee62a96299e7f5978….png) ImgOps Google

>>3029
Looking at a picture of someone looking at their kid and saying "I want another" reminds them of the kind of sexual acts associated with this commonly.
Should a picture like this be forbidden?

 No.3037

>>3029
I have posted only one (1) diaper pic.

The tutu pics bother you too?  Why?

 No.3038

>>3033
And what of pictures of chicks with their tits hanging out, only covered by their hair?

 No.3039

>>3026
That wasn't my question.  

 No.3040

>>3031  >>3032
>>3033  all that "PG-13" stuff that gets posted here is also designed to titillate yet is ok; again, this is the double standard.

 No.3041

File: 1538640284012.png (17.45 KB, 607x597, 607:597, 144109__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>3032
>>3034

Okay, you are technically right.

 No.3042

>>3035
Exactly.  Just like a diaper (clean) does not depict scat or any sex at all.

 No.3043

File: 1538640451629.jpeg (446.16 KB, 731x600, 731:600, 43.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3035
Yeah, sure. I think the reason I frame it this way is that a lot of people feel there's this atmosphere of sex blanketing a lot of conversations, communicated through subtext, that they wish weren't sexually charged. That's what I hear people saying anyway, and it's also how I feel at times.

>>3037
I mean it's been a while since you have, but I seem to remember a couple of diaper pics in your past. Could easily be wrong on that.

>>3038
I don't mind it here and there personally. It was quite inoffensive to me. If it was being posted very frequently, though, this would be a different story.

>>3036
No, I don't think so, I think that looks a lot less sexual than the other one.

>>3040
Yeah it is a double standard, but it seems like that's the double standard that people want.

 No.3044

>>3041  the best kind of right :twi7:

 No.3045

File: 1538640466411.jpg (241.63 KB, 852x719, 852:719, Screenshot_20180927-085447.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3037
If I were to wager a guess, it's because the only people that tend to wear tutus are children or people trying to act like children.

Or ballerinas, but we're talking about outside of a professional environment.

At any rate, it's less of a disgust thing and more of an 'uncanny valley' sort of thing, because even though there is nothing inherently 'wrong' or 'disturbing' about seeing a non-ballarina adult wearing a tutu, it still feels 'off' in the same way a dog with human teeth would.

That's my guess, anyway. But honestly if you like them, keep posting them. They aren't sexual and if someone is going to get offended over a tutu they need to get a stronger spine.

 No.3046

File: 1538640596857.png (37.61 KB, 369x325, 369:325, 124124.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3043
That's not really the response I expected, but given the "but it seems like the double standard that people want", I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

Personally, I despise double standards. Double-standards are by their very nature quite unfair. They certainly make me feel unwelcome, and I imagine LP's going to say he feels the same. The ideal is that everyone is treated equally, not this tyranny of the majority crap.

 No.3047

>>3043
>Yeah, sure. I think the reason I frame it this way is that a lot of people feel there's this atmosphere of sex blanketing a lot of conversations that they wish weren't sexually charged. That's what I hear people saying anyway, and it's also how I feel at times.
90% of HAY :twi7:

 No.3048

>>3045
If I had to guess, it's probably because it is usually a guy in the tutu. At least, I think that's what Rose refers to.
Though, it's still pretty tame. Certainly far tamer than other items, as referenced earlier.

 No.3049

File: 1538640692606.png (1.32 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100434.png) ImgOps Google

>>3043
The way we do it on Ponychan is just mark a whole thread as Mature. That way if people want to get involved in a conversation that may involve sexual content, they know what they're getting into before they enter the Thread, instead if it suddenly just popping up out of nowhere when they aren't expecting it. Seems to work out well.

 No.3050

>>3043
>Yeah it is a double standard, but it seems like that's the double standard that people want.
Who?  You?  Who wants literal sex but draws the line at references to a fetish?

 No.3051

>>3050
This.
It isn't like we had a vote for this, it seems to be something pulled up out of nowhere.
Are you going by reports?
I don;'t think those are necessarily representative of the majority's feelings on the matter.

 No.3052

>>3049  This is a great system.  but according to rules here, it might not matter.

 No.3053

>>3037
I'm not quite sure why it makes me uncomfortable the way it does, but I used to have some friends on a forum, some really, really dysfunctional dudes, that would publically RP sissification. It was gussy stuff like tutus and ballerina outfits, small girls clothes and stuff that got brought into it. It was just generally a really uncomfortable time having them around.

It's a negative association for me. I don't report this or anything because I recognize that it's just a thing I have going on, and probably not for anyone else but it's definitely weird seeing that stuff.

>>3049
Yeah, I think that's kind of a good system.

>>3050
Whoa, cool your jets. The rules also say that anything Obscene is not allowed.

I don't want 'sex', or maybe let's say conventional sexuality, around. I just tolerate it fine.

>>3051
Fetishistic content has always had a special clause in the rules. Its always been a thing, it just wasn't being enforced, and some people (mostly me) were upset about this.

>>3052
Well if we were going to use that system the rules would have to change.

 No.3054

>>3053
>Whoa, cool your jets. The rules also say that anything Obscene is not allowed.
>I don't want sex, I just tolerate it fine.
Sex scenes in R-rated movies are not generally considered obscene, hence sex is literally allowed here.
You tolerate sex...  but you're less tolerant of fetishes?  in general?
>Well if we were going to use that system the rules would have to change.
true.

 No.3055

File: 1538641253551.jpg (82.83 KB, 313x294, 313:294, 1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3053
>Whoa, cool your jets. The rules also say that anything Obscene is not allowed.
Yeh, but you just described something as obscene that we disagree is.

As to the rest of your post; There's also some people, quite a damn large amount, given the content of this, and the prior thread, who want the lot laxer. Who dislike tight rules that punish one group, but not the other.
I'm afraid I am going to have to say, I do not believe your perspective is representative of the majority, here.
Certainly, I'm not going to believe you just for what you decide to say, here.
At the very least, before we declare such an item, we ought to hold a vote on the subject.

 No.3056

File: 1538641455230.png (17.61 KB, 334x317, 334:317, 268722__UNOPT__safe_rule-6….png) ImgOps Google

So I'm gonna be honest, I'm not sure what obscene means in this context, because I would've assumed it was covered by rule 2.  I'm gonna have to ask and it might have to be discussed, I didn't even see it explained in the poll.

For rule 3, we went with the one labeled "lenient", so I'm going to interpret that as meaning lighter stuff is okay.  The diaper pics and leash picture are okay because they aren't inherently sexually charged.  If you post about them in certain context then we might have to step in anyway, much as we did for that Sweetie Belle picture that had a thread not long ago.  In both of these cases I'd still say they should be in the filter, though.

Tutu pics are still super weird, I will never understand.  Uncomfortable, without aesthetic or utilitarian appeal, one of the worst outfits available.  But hey, you can wear weird tutus or corsets or whatever all you want, that's on you.  No filter required for that.

The mecha lady pics could be considered sexually charged, but they also aren't fetish material and definitely aren't obscene, they fall into the filter category.  If it's sexually charged but not considered porn, it still falls under rule one.

 No.3057

File: 1538641517411.png (346.34 KB, 900x630, 10:7, pinkie_padded_pie_by_hourg….png) ImgOps Google

>>3043
I just remembered, there was a second one, the scene from cupcakes with diapers instead of chainsaw.  So it's two images, the cupcakes one i won't try to defend.

This one was ruled as OK under the old rules.  Does it bother you, Rose?  To me it represents security and being nurtured, cared for, protected.

>>3053
Im sorry that stuff bothers you.  I like that stuff.  It's hot.  

But my love of the tutu comes from the ballet.

 No.3058

>>3056
And as far as the lizard?

 No.3059

>>3057
Yeah, that one bothers me too.

>>3055
Isn't... I mean... isn't that what we just did?

>>3054
Yeah, sure, I guess if someone posted an R-rated movie I guess they could technically post sex to the board. But outside of this very specific instance where someone uploads 2.6 gigabytes of file to a site that doesn't even take video format, I don't think it's very likely to come up that often.

Some fetishes. It's not a general thing, but the blanket treatment makes it easier for mods and users to judge when they can or can't post something.

 No.3060

>>3059
Not for determining people want a double-standard, no. Certainly not.
Did you actually read what was proposed in the poll?

And of course we didn't determine at all what "sexually charged" or "obscene" means.

 No.3061

>>3049
It works well until someone links to the mature stuff from a non-mature thread, exposing it to non-mature viewers.

 No.3062

>>3061
Doesn't work like that, from what I understand.

 No.3063

File: 1538641749014.png (36.69 KB, 412x382, 206:191, I have no idea.png) ImgOps Google

>>3057
>To me it represents security and being nurtured, cared for, protected.

To the Nazis, the Swastika represents a social movement, nationalistic pride, and a struggle for a glorious victory.  Most people don't feel those things when they see it, though!  It's all perspective.

>>3058

What lizard?

 No.3064

File: 1538641754690.png (239.5 KB, 900x900, 1:1, 1443896__safe_artist-colon….png) ImgOps Google

Neat.

 No.3065

File: 1538641798970.png (Spoiler Image, 668.51 KB, 1600x2222, 800:1111, I-3a7D8DDFuRhFpkksNIaJZhBq….png) ImgOps Google

>>3063
This one.

 No.3066

File: 1538641823725.png (17.45 KB, 607x597, 607:597, 144109__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>3065

Oh, that's what I meant when I talked about the leash.

 No.3067

>>3059  I could take a pic of a scene from the movie and it would be allowed as well according to rules.  just saying it makes no sense that this is the standard.  :pinkie11:

Who gets to decide which fetishes?  based on what?

>>3060  true, there was no across-the-board option

>>3064  welcome

 No.3068

File: 1538641908161.png (35.07 KB, 252x406, 18:29, Oh gosh, do you really thi….png) ImgOps Google

>>3059
>But outside of this very specific instance where someone uploads 2.6 gigabytes of file to a site that doesn't even take video format

Upload the whole thing in gifs.  A nice "let's watch together" thread.  Classic.

 No.3069

>>3066
Ah, fair enough.
Though, that's only for 'in the filter', which is still vague as what it does besides, and of course hasn't yet been implemented.
>>3067
I don't think there's even cross-shown threads in the /ef/ board to begin with.

 No.3070

>>3060
I did, yes. Well, you can ask Moony about that, he might be inclined to do another vote.

>>3067
I'm not sure if it would. I think if you take a pic from the movie you're kind of highlighting the sex and drawing attention to it. That kinda changes the context, making it more obscene.

I guess the administration does, based on what is more offensive to the uerbase?

 No.3071

File: 1538642040364.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google

>>3069

Well I know what the filter should do, but I guess I still have to wait to see implementation on that.

 No.3072

>>3069  I was referring to an across-the-board-application rule, but that too

>>3070  the sex in the movie is itself drawing attention to the sex in the movie  :trixie8:  the context hasn't changed
how do you determine what's offensive to the user base?

 No.3073

>>3071
I was more hoping for the standard, now.

 No.3074

File: 1538642139558.png (47.65 KB, 559x493, 559:493, A feeling of flight.png) ImgOps Google

>>3073

Well we can't filter stuff, but I don't think we're going to temporarily ban stuff that we want to be filtered, so people who don't like it just have to wait a sec for the filter.

 No.3075

>>3072
Of course a sill image is different from a movie. To say that the context hasn't changed is kinda silly. What do you want to get at with this analogy?

You estimate.

 No.3076

>>3067
thanks? I guess. I'm not really following the conversation if that's what you're after.

 No.3077

File: 1538642214947.png (550.16 KB, 800x800, 1:1, 7ed528690c43c5c95875e7eddd….png) ImgOps Google

>>3074
Fair enough to me.

 No.3078

>>3075  sex is sex regardless of whether it's in a movie or not.  the lack of visible genitalia makes it rated-R and thus not obscene according to mainstream sensibilities.  that doesn't change with or without the rest of the movie.  thus the picture stands on its own.

estimate based on what?  reporting busybodies?  that just estimates what the busybodies don't like, or WHO they don't like.

>>3076  you're welcome

 No.3079

File: 1538642403713.png (48.74 KB, 479x433, 479:433, Hehe.png) ImgOps Google

>>3075
>>3078

So what was the question involving movies, then?  I missed it.  Piracy isn't allowed on the site.

 No.3080

>>3079  there was no question.  sex scenes from R-rated movies are technically allowed thanks to the nonsensical rules.

 No.3081

>>3078
> sex is sex regardless of whether it's in a movie or not.  the lack of visible genitalia makes it rated-R and thus not obscene according to mainstream sensibilities.  that doesn't change with or without the rest of the movie.  thus the picture stands on its own.
Nope, don't agree with this.

They just do their best to estimate based on the information they have available, whatever that information might be. They're not stupid either, though. They recognize when someone is just on a vendetta. Have you been personally slighted by the mod team since you seem to have such a negative interpretation of their work process?

>>3080
They really are not necessarily. It heavily depends on the image and the context.

 No.3082

>>3070
Oh no no no, enough damage happened with the last referendum.

I'm very sorry you find tutus creepy because i love them so much.  I don't care if Mondo likes em, he just got away with calling me a nazi for seeing the pinky diaper pic as comforting.  Gotta watch out for that Mondo!

>>3060
Actually that was what we just voted on.  80% of voters want a double standard.  

If Mondo's right and you can have your lizard and i get my tutus i think we better quit before we get in any deeper and lose them.


Rose, you can have what you want.  Don't go shaking the tree any further.  I know this was all driven by a very tiny number of people demanding change (less than the 4 out of 28 in the initial poll) and if what Mondo has clarified is confirmed by the general staff, i think we can make this work.  You don't need to tighten the screws down on us any further.

 No.3083

>>3082
Nah, the choice ended up being for laxer rules when it came for the lot. We didn't get the stricter interpretation, anyway. We got laxer than we had.
I mean, it's still a double-standard, but it's lesser to the other options.

 No.3084

>>3080
They're still obscene tho, excluded.  Just cuz they originate in a movie doesn't change that.

Fucking goddamned well better not be straight up sex scenes allowed here, the constitution calls this an "entirely SFW site".

 No.3085

>>3083
Thats my point.  We dont want another vote; the noose can only tighten.

 No.3086

>>3085
I dunno man, we had that prospect appearing on the horizon not long ago, and we ended up turning it around.

 No.3087

>>3081
>Nope, don't agree with this.
This is what differentiates R from X.  You don't have to agree with it; that's the way it is.

>They just do their best to estimate based on the information they have available, whatever that information might be. They're not stupid either, though. They recognize when someone is just on a vendetta. Have you been personally slighted by the mod team since you seem to have such a negative interpretation of their work process?
I have been personally slighted by the double standards.

>They really are not necessarily. It heavily depends on the image and the context.
I already told you the context.

>>3084
>They're still obscene tho, excluded.  Just cuz they originate in a movie doesn't change that.
I disagree.  If you post them, in the context of the movie, then they have the same context, and thus aren't obscene.  :fluf2:

 No.3088

>>3084
>entirely SFW site
Great, then we can scrap the NSFW switch.
Lame idea that is... Just like user filters...

 No.3089

File: 1538643073102.png (21.02 KB, 366x427, 6:7, 468233__safe_solo_rule 63_….png) ImgOps Google

>>3080

I think despite what Hollywood tries to push, that counts as pornography.  There might be some nuance in there depending on the scene, but I think that falls under rule 2 for us and the MPAA can shove off.

>>3082
>and if what Mondo has clarified is confirmed by the general staff

Which, for the record, it should be clarified by other staff.  This is how I have interpreted the rules, which is how I'm going to enforce them for now, but I'm going to double check when possible to see what's up.  Especially the obscene thing, because I'm not even sure what the people who voted for that were looking for.

>>3082
>he just got away with calling me a nazi for seeing the pinky diaper pic as comforting.

I didn't say you were actually a nazi, it's just an example of how vastly different perceptions can be.

 No.3090

>>3087
We aren't the Motion Picture Association of America. We don't have to use their standards, dude.

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. They really are quite good folks, though. They do try to consider everyone's interests as much as possible and as equally as possible.

No, you told me it was an R rated movie and that there was a still with no genitalia. Let's be perfectly clear. That is an incredibly meager description of a context.

 No.3091

>>3089
>I think despite what Hollywood tries to push, that counts as pornography.  There might be some nuance in there depending on the scene, but I think that falls under rule 2 for us and the MPAA can shove off.
So then you ALSO HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT OBSCENE MEANS.  down the rabbit hole of bullshit we go...  :twi7:

>>3090  The site can use any standards it wants.  But those standards need to be clarified.  and ideally should also be fair.  currently they are neither.

I doubt it.  I'm sure they are.  I disagree.

The context could be anywhere.  I could describe the scene and the movie as a whole in the text.  I could provide the context with other pics in other posts.  It literally doesn't matter.  The picture stands on its own.

 No.3092

File: 1538643478100.png (32.26 KB, 476x476, 1:1, 131032__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>3091
>So then you ALSO HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT OBSCENE MEANS.

Yeah, well I don't have to do it at four in the morning.  I have work today.

 No.3093

>>3092  You can't hide forever!  :fluf5:

 No.3094

File: 1538643664623.png (70.91 KB, 500x475, 20:19, tumblr_n0ggnqu7LF1toamcjo1….png) ImgOps Google

>>3093

Until further notice, obscene refers to shock rock concerts.  Don't post pictures of Marilyn Manson eating bats or whatever.

This is subject to change at a later date.

 No.3095

>>3094  you went there :rara4:  how could you.  that's high art

 No.3096

>>3086
Reported posts getting more weight just because they were reported lost by zero margin.

Trust me, things can only get worse in another vote.

So long as "sexually charged" doesnt mean automatically just cuz its fetish, we need to keep what we have.

>>3088
I don't think anyone but Rose and Sherlock are going to have the switch set to filter anyway and if we're truly sfw its gonna be pretty boring here

>>3089
Well, if Wizard makes the call, he gets to use his bondage-collar pics but we can't have blushes or leashes.  This is why i want a uniform standard that we all know about so there's no late-night sniping of images that have been deemed ok.

As to the Nazi comparison, even the Nazis were for the most part coerced to go along with all that.  I find Pinky's serenity to be genuine in my heart with no coercion so there.

 No.3097

>>3094
>>3095

That's fetishistic tho (goth bat eating fetish) so you can't exclude it under obscene.

Eat those bats in a carefully non-sexually charged way (if Marilyn Manson is capable of doung so) and you can post em.

 No.3098

>>2960
>But any material construed as fetish material is against the rules.  
Only if it "crosses the line into being sexually charged" (whatever that means)

 No.3099

File: 1538643964075.png (48.25 KB, 404x207, 404:207, Resty Cuddles.png) ImgOps Google

>>3096
>Well, if Wizard makes the call

Well not just Wizard.  But part of the whole thing was to make things uniform, so obviously I can't just decide what I think should be happening and go for it.  We've all just gotta sit down and make sure we're on the same page, and maybe everyone else interpreted these rules differently from me.

>>3095

Too late, goin' to bed.

 No.3100

>>3096
Fair enough. Though, for what it's worth, it was pretty directly stated that is how it is anyway.

The nazi example is rather dumb, you ask me, by simple virtue of it being the emblem for a specific ideology.
Ask a communist what the hammer and sickle represents, they'll say something to do with the workers uniting or some shit, but, it's a symbol of communism nonetheless. Much as the swastika is a symbol of naziism none the less.

 No.3101

>>3098
Or is "obscene".

 No.3102

>>3081 see >>830940

 No.3103

File: 1538644164410.png (297.93 KB, 420x420, 1:1, 6ea5659d5e9898dd75e9a57730….png) ImgOps Google

>>3100
He was teasing me with the nazi comparison.  Don't take it seriously.

>>3099
Pic related


Tutus are totally comfortable and practical btw.

 No.3104

>>3103
Still, as a functional argument, it doesn't really work.

 No.3105

File: 1538644274199.gif (1.19 MB, 164x240, 41:60, small.gif) ImgOps Google

>>3104
It wasn't supposed to. A joke.

We wore him out so we win.

 No.3106

File: 1538644311453.gif (2.43 MB, 864x484, 216:121, full (2).gif) ImgOps Google


 No.3107

File: 1538644366415.png (67.46 KB, 1191x670, 1191:670, rarity_tutu_by_raribelle-d….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3108

File: 1538644394262.jpg (83.95 KB, 640x960, 2:3, 23c6766e583cdcc447b132b33f….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3109

File: 1538644418257.jpg (217.8 KB, 1112x719, 1112:719, academylive_season__04_fit….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3110

File: 1538644465935.png (263.67 KB, 757x1055, 757:1055, meadowbreeze_comm___pokey_….png) ImgOps Google

Obscene.

 No.3111

File: 1538644501827.png (170.91 KB, 683x919, 683:919, pinkie_pie_by_spmsl-d4i319….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3112

>>3110
>blush
!!!DELETE!!! !!!DELETE!!! !!!DELETE!!!

 No.3113

File: 1538644563712.jpg (63.18 KB, 650x550, 13:11, full (11).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3104
Repost that leash lizard, we're sub as fuck!

 No.3114

File: 1538644607110.png (223.71 KB, 778x1018, 389:509, pinkie_pie_in_pirate_dress….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3115

File: 1538644655814.png (179.71 KB, 900x675, 4:3, pinkie__s_party_cannon_by_….png) ImgOps Google

>>3112
Gotcher violence and gore right here

 No.3116

File: 1538644688300.gif (105.16 KB, 500x425, 20:17, 755540__safe_artist-colon-….gif) ImgOps Google


 No.3117

File: 1538644725636.png (258.97 KB, 614x1302, 307:651, pinkie_pie__seapony__by_in….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3118

File: 1538644751165.gif (66.06 KB, 350x200, 7:4, 4c9.gif) ImgOps Google


 No.3119

File: 1538644779179.png (81.96 KB, 586x307, 586:307, 38562__suggestive_artist-c….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3120

File: 1538644801408.png (122.8 KB, 362x533, 362:533, 036.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3121

File: 1538644832641.gif (580.45 KB, 542x542, 1:1, 614958__safe_derpy hooves_….gif) ImgOps Google


 No.3122

File: 1538644876390.png (312.42 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, 342004__safe_artist-colon-….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3123

File: 1538644894347.png (113.67 KB, 542x477, 542:477, full (29)-1.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3124

File: 1538644936672.gif (198.24 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 486636__safe_artist-colon-….gif) ImgOps Google


 No.3125

File: 1538645059590.png (523.88 KB, 979x1024, 979:1024, large (11).png) ImgOps Google

>>839762
Apply your fetishes to a lost pony

 No.3126

>>3098  I misread what you wrote.  but by some definitions people are using here, fetish material is sexually charged by default.  so it really hasn't changed anything.

 No.3127

>>3125  you couldn't handle it  :fluf2:

 No.3128

File: 1538645191325.jpg (49.97 KB, 736x736, 1:1, 255d1e1dfad99aff2c38d705f4….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3079
>piracy not allowed

Arrrr

 No.3129

File: 1538645247325.png (346.34 KB, 900x630, 10:7, pinkie_padded_pie_by_hourg….png) ImgOps Google

>>3127
You couldnt.

 No.3130

File: 1538645269385.gif (448.74 KB, 600x600, 1:1, derpy_dance_by_mixermike62….gif) ImgOps Google


 No.3131

lost gon' get permabanned for obscene and sexually charged piracy  :glim1:

>>3129  couldn't what?

 No.3132

File: 1538645310977.png (49.21 KB, 450x450, 1:1, 24701__safe_artist-colon-m….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3133

File: 1538645332946.png (168.56 KB, 785x1000, 157:200, 1538330646543.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3134

File: 1538645364587.jpeg (140.78 KB, 1060x753, 1060:753, 1538455683532.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Sexually charged

 No.3135

>>3133  This.

 No.3136

File: 1538645417463.png (191.01 KB, 1280x1280, 1:1, 1411969732.skitterpone_rar….png) ImgOps Google

>>3131
Handle it

 No.3137

File: 1538645466044.jpg (140.84 KB, 1200x1000, 6:5, large (2).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3131
Let em ban me, this is tame.

 No.3138

>>3133
>>3135
>friendship
Lewd....
pls ban!

 No.3139

File: 1538645508542.gif (17.25 KB, 228x250, 114:125, giphy (5).gif) ImgOps Google

Love this one

 No.3140

File: 1538645578758.png (430.94 KB, 1280x1010, 128:101, large (12).png) ImgOps Google

Naughty tutus

Sorries Rose.

 No.3141

File: 1538645623405.jpg (121.27 KB, 500x512, 125:128, prwwwoxy.duckdeeeeuckgo.co….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3142

File: 1538645651671.jpg (60.27 KB, 736x736, 1:1, dca9d70e7a5d0ab924a3e3a71d….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3143

>>3138  Anon, I'm going to friendship you so hard :trixie10:
>>3136  :twi7::twi7::twi7::dash3:
>>3141
>banned for advertising your book

 No.3144

File: 1538645674172.png (460.92 KB, 1024x819, 1024:819, pinkie_bedhead___time_for_….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3145

File: 1538645738123.png (1003.22 KB, 1080x751, 1080:751, 1537734300161.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3146

>>3145
>non-pony
>banned

 No.3147

File: 1538645768107.gif (1.16 MB, 550x400, 11:8, 1537570801100.gif) ImgOps Google


 No.3148

File: 1538645814936.png (62.55 KB, 258x256, 129:128, 1537914685458.png) ImgOps Google

>>3146
Its moonys own!

 No.3149

File: 1538645840773.png (472.22 KB, 1500x1024, 375:256, 1537246423968.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3150

File: 1538645866393.jpg (38.76 KB, 534x464, 267:232, 1537819450026.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3151

File: 1538645895936.jpg (77.23 KB, 900x620, 45:31, kisspng-pinkie-pie-my-litt….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3152

File: 1538645946783.png (400.24 KB, 2526x1785, 842:595, full (19).png) ImgOps Google


 No.3153

File: 1538645974181.png (159.02 KB, 870x675, 58:45, full (15).png) ImgOps Google


 No.3154

File: 1538646018026.png (223.53 KB, 688x1161, 16:27, doctor_pinkie_by_the_crusi….png) ImgOps Google

Making people uncomfortable

 No.3155

File: 1538646063268.jpg (117.87 KB, 893x894, 893:894, 1536952638212.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3156

File: 1538646085040.jpg (30.61 KB, 286x253, 26:23, StarCatcherBackcard.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3157

>>3082
> he just got away with calling me a nazi
See, this is an example of you incorrectly taking a post as a personal attack.  Mondo of course didn't say anything like that.  Read the post more closely.

 No.3158

File: 1538646112450.png (41.89 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 54d10030cc86b1b9ee9577f0b2….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3159


 No.3160

File: 1538646182723.png (145.9 KB, 894x894, 1:1, 1536953450497.png) ImgOps Google

>>3157
Frikkin joking.

 No.3161

File: 1538646222731.png (345.53 KB, 802x995, 802:995, lamia_pinkie_pie_by_elsdra….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3162


 No.3163

File: 1538646256834.png (672.76 KB, 950x690, 95:69, 5eb.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3164

File: 1538646396242.png (299.02 KB, 966x1024, 483:512, large (13).png) ImgOps Google

>>3162
Moons never blushes

 No.3165

>>3162
If I were a mod you would have been banned so hard right now! :dash2:

So lewd :dash4:

 No.3166

>>3164  that would be obscene!

 No.3167

File: 1538646436553.jpg (43.21 KB, 358x358, 1:1, 1536909870286.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3168

File: 1538646472394.jpeg (563.54 KB, 1323x1600, 1323:1600, 1656321__safe_artist-colo….jpeg) ImgOps Google


 No.3169

File: 1538646550965.gif (147.32 KB, 420x300, 7:5, 1535673049563.gif) ImgOps Google

>>3166
Especially if had a leash

 No.3170

>>3165  hah, joke's on you!  I'm a perfectly vanilla poster, so the bar is set higher.  no fetish material here, bucko!  :pinkie9::trixie10::trixie10:

 No.3171

File: 1538646591541.jpg (762.57 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1536749742804.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3172

File: 1538646650253.png (153.61 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 834.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3173

>>3169  leashes are literally more sex than sex.

 No.3174

File: 1538646676624.png (292.22 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, full (14).png) ImgOps Google


 No.3175

File: 1538646733113.gif (1.24 MB, 369x450, 41:50, 1537660355147.gif) ImgOps Google

>>3173
Dont get me started on collars

 No.3176

File: 1538646766739.jpg (12.11 KB, 236x301, 236:301, 93318393481b813404d2962a21….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3177

File: 1538646798472.png (937.38 KB, 1500x1024, 375:256, 1779089.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3178

File: 1538646837355.png (173.97 KB, 805x1024, 805:1024, large (10).png) ImgOps Google


 No.3179

File: 1538646875051.jpg (764.4 KB, 2192x2282, 1096:1141, 20180801_195915-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3180

File: 1538646937328.gif (1007.53 KB, 500x305, 100:61, 871391__safe_twilight spar….gif) ImgOps Google


 No.3181

File: 1538646965028.jpeg (227.53 KB, 888x1100, 222:275, 1702749__safe_artist-colo….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3168
love that artist, such a cute style

>>3170
Vanilla friendship fetsihsist! :fluf5:

 No.3182

File: 1538646981439.jpg (84 KB, 686x570, 343:285, spike_and_rarity_by_kilala….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Oooo

 No.3183

File: 1538647041824.jpg (461.53 KB, 1297x1297, 1:1, pinkie_pie_nurse_by_pyruva….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3181
Hes got u there bote

 No.3184

File: 1538647068329.jpg (67.02 KB, 620x567, 620:567, pinkie-pie-broch-my-little….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3185

File: 1538647105477.jpg (469.33 KB, 2000x2000, 1:1, DL-WMLP022_6d332b1d-3d15-4….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Oh look pinky's leash

 No.3186

File: 1538647124588.gif (126.66 KB, 500x400, 5:4, 047.gif) ImgOps Google


 No.3187

File: 1538647155964.jpeg (484.4 KB, 1045x1280, 209:256, 1536943437439.jpeg) ImgOps Google


 No.3188

File: 1538647192460.jpg (50.34 KB, 1024x560, 64:35, 1537335252809.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3189

File: 1538647237331.png (953.92 KB, 1280x1024, 5:4, 1537297346019.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3190

File: 1538647265101.jpg (12.05 KB, 300x400, 3:4, s-l400.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3191

File: 1538647296778.png (399.85 KB, 934x855, 934:855, 1537004347579.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3192

File: 1538647355318.png (719.02 KB, 1200x807, 400:269, full (23).png) ImgOps Google


 No.3193

>>3175  collars are fine though
>>3181
>>3183
damnit!  foiled again.  :dash4:

 No.3194

File: 1538647429182.png (1.95 MB, 1968x1888, 123:118, 1816527-1.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3195

>>3194
>collar :shy5::shy5::shy6::shy6:

 No.3196

File: 1538647525490.jpg (244.28 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, 20170513_011513_zpshmmqqja….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3193
Reported for being foiled

 No.3197

File: 1538647575874.jpeg (10.43 KB, 225x225, 1:1, images (16).jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3195
Woof

 No.3198

File: 1538647605982.jpg (60.9 KB, 379x499, 379:499, 61DRaKRbJeL._SX377_BO1,204….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3199

File: 1538647650730.png (2.38 MB, 2100x1446, 350:241, 1690891.png) ImgOps Google

Obscene

 No.3200

File: 1538647693342.png (138.09 KB, 613x689, 613:689, 1537326055353.png) ImgOps Google

Moonses

 No.3201

File: 1538647729237.jpg (67.65 KB, 550x500, 11:10, full (5).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3202

>>3197
>banned for pet play!  :aj2:
>>3199  hyperlewd and sexually obscenicharged
>quadra-ban!

 No.3203

File: 1538647754199.png (14.78 KB, 828x576, 23:16, 773791__safe_artist-colon-….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3204

File: 1538647843596.jpg (97.87 KB, 894x894, 1:1, 27.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3205

File: 1538647900175.png (287.3 KB, 996x893, 996:893, 1536305861584.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3206

>>3204
>c-c-c-combo ban!  :trixie7:

 No.3207

File: 1538647951428.png (711.49 KB, 594x780, 99:130, 1537319203178.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3208

File: 1538648070645.jpeg (91.05 KB, 1600x1600, 1:1, 0004912_ifb-danish-chocol….jpeg) ImgOps Google

danish

 No.3209

File: 1538648112050.jpg (53.4 KB, 640x315, 128:63, 1536391176158 (1).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3210


 No.3211

File: 1538648144435.png (59.08 KB, 511x427, 73:61, 1537204232719.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3212

>>3211  I'm going to bed, myself.  I hope you feel better now!  :dash1:

 No.3213

File: 1538648220403.png (95.51 KB, 894x894, 1:1, attack_of_the_clones_by_be….png) ImgOps Google


 No.3214

>>3212
Me too

Nity nite!

Hope u feel better 2

 No.3215

File: 1538648357507.jpg (32.89 KB, 500x327, 500:327, 559.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.3216

File: 1538648496059.gif (2.99 MB, 640x356, 160:89, full (1).gif) ImgOps Google

Gnite ponyville.

 No.3217

File: 1538676778307.png (163.63 KB, 400x314, 200:157, 1524948791775-1.png) ImgOps Google

>>3160
It...wasn't very obvious that you were joking. It's difficult to read peoples tones over text.

 No.3218

File: 1538677621394.jpg (84.17 KB, 500x334, 250:167, 2056641388_5a0bf0de2d_z.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3207
W-what? I'm so confused

 No.3219

File: 1538678586095.jpg (926.54 KB, 2068x2417, 2068:2417, 20180916_232452-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3218
My Gunny the plush tank thread, another poster interpreted in context of my powerpuf girls background and made that for me


>>3217
Saying gotta watch out for that Mondo?  That better be joking.

a lost pony is odd.  Thanks Mondo, Boat and the others for pulling me out of a dark place last nite.

 No.3220

>>3219
>My Gunny the plush tank thread, another poster interpreted in context of my powerpuf girls background and made this for me

That's actually really funny

>>3219
>Saying gotta watch out for that Mondo?  

I just mean that if someone didn't know you well, over text, it kind off comes off like you were angry. Not a big deal as you clarified, but it wasn't immediately obvious that it was a joke.

 No.3221

File: 1538679347838.jpg (551.17 KB, 2301x1484, 2301:1484, 20181003_002607-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3220
Mondo picked up on it right away and it was responding to his own joke in similar style.

Yeah i tried to link you my silly tank thread but i've let it roll off, alas it's just fond memory now.

 No.3222

>>3219 my pleasure!

 No.3223

File: 1538681208379.png (41.89 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 54d10030cc86b1b9ee9577f0b2….png) ImgOps Google

>>3222
too charged?

 No.3224

>>3223 not sure what you mean :trixie9:

 No.3225

Is the Political Drama rule still part of the new rules?

 No.3226

File: 1538702738837.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

Concerning the rules of adult content, as they pertain to fetishistic content:

Rule (3) of Adult Content currently states: "Please do not post fetishistic content that crosses the line into being sexually charged."

It's the most lenient rule we proposed, but how are we going to enforce it?

1. We'll look into the intent of the user. What does the text paired with the image say? Is it innuendo? Is there any sexual undertones to that post? The individual moderator will make that determination.

2. We will look at the picture itself. (A) does it involve a fetish, such as the BDSM or diapers, or what not? (B) is that picture a sexually charged image?

3. Was the nsfw box ticked? (note: still working on developing it)


Let's look at #2, i think that's the most difficult one to parse.

Does the picture involve a fetish? Well, lots of things can be fetishes. We understand that. Is the picture a sexually charged image? A picture of a lizard on a leash, making a face: no. If the shirt says "sub as f*ck", referencing the unmistakable sexual act implicit in the fetish therein, then it crosses the line into being sexually charged.

Likewise, a picture of a pony in a diaper from the show is almost certainly not sexually charged. But what if the text that accompanies it is? Or, in the context of the thread, it might be?

For example: a thread asks, "what are your favorite things in the world?" And someone, with a history of sexual obsession with diapers, says "diapers, lol" and posts a picture from the show. This, we would determine, would cross the line into being sexually charged, even if the image itself is not necessarily so.

As always, its about intent.

What about the sfw switch, what will that solve? Well, The first image, the one where the words on the t-shirt make it cross the line, could be safely posted without being against the rules.

The sfw switch will create room for leeway, which allows more prurient images to be posted without causing distress. We aren't trying to clamp down on nsfw stuff to be arbitrary: we are doing it because a substantial portion of the community feels that the fetishistic stuff is offensive to them, whereas other sexual stuff is not.

We on the staff are still going to opt for the policy of greatest lenience where possible.

 No.3227

File: 1538703296472.png (198.14 KB, 474x332, 237:166, oh heh.png) ImgOps Google

>>3226
At least, that's the going interpretation.

The other debate in the staff is that the lizard's t-shirt should be considered fine, and that the line should be drawn there.

 No.3228

File: 1538703573574.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google

>>3226
>>3227

In rule one, it references "obscene" content, what does that refer to?

 No.3229

File: 1538704422901.jpg (37.9 KB, 500x251, 500:251, pinkyfluttershug.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3226
>>3228

Moonses is Bestest Pony


(Mondo pretty great too)

 No.3230

File: 1538707770440.png (68.35 KB, 276x279, 92:93, Smile FillyFlutte.png) ImgOps Google

>>3228
>>3229
Obscene is whatever crosses the line form suggestive by being too prurient or violent or dark

it is not a super clear line, because it isn't really possible to do that. the other rules, hopefully, enumerate just where that line is, relative to the preferences of the community

 No.3231

File: 1538709011103.png (133.48 KB, 773x1152, 773:1152, 311764__safe_artist-colon-….png) ImgOps Google

>>3230
pru·ri·ent
ˈproorēənt/
adjective
having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters.
"she'd been the subject of much prurient curiosity"
synonyms:        salacious, licentious, voyeuristic, lascivious, lecherous, lustful, lewd, libidinous, lubricious; formalconcupiscent
"she was completely turned off by his prurient remarks"


Mmmm lubricious.

It seems pretty similar to "sexually charged" to me, right?

And we get to do it and "sexually charged" a little bit, so long as it's under the nsfw tag?

Meaning, debates over blushing etc will be quelled by putting under the tag.  Right?

 No.3232

File: 1538710268255.png (36.69 KB, 412x382, 206:191, I have no idea.png) ImgOps Google

>>3230

See, I was confused because obscene seemed like something that was already covered by the other rules.  Is that just what it means, it's fine if it doesn't break the other rules?

 No.3233

File: 1538711386282.jpg (90.62 KB, 437x416, 437:416, 18.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3226
Still don;t get how the shirt is what draws it over the line.
Like, if you argued it was the offering of the leash, or the "please take me", I could actually get the argument.
The whole "the shirt says sub as fuck, therefor it crosses the line" just seems woefully silly to me.

Basically leaves the entire thing as something I feel completely unable to predict. And of course, there's still the issue that countless other items are allowed, that are far more sexually provocative.

 No.3234

File: 1538711513467.png (155.25 KB, 516x782, 258:391, 634df2716f8da51922c2054ea9….png) ImgOps Google

>>3233
To add to this; as someone suggested earlier, would a shirt that says "I like to fuck in the missionary position" be too far, as well?

And of course, all this assumes you can't be submissive in a nonsexual manner. As I mentioned earlier, I've talked to enough people within that particular community to understand it's perfectly capable of operating beyond purely sexual encounters, much in the same way, as I believe Lost Pony stated, as marriage itself.
Should we ban marriage pictures for the implication of sexual content?

 No.3235

File: 1538712541094.jpg (103.6 KB, 900x1080, 5:6, kisspng-pinkie-pie-pony-br….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3233

The way i see it, Nooms, the answer is here:
"What about the sfw switch, what will that solve? Well, The first image, the one where the words on the t-shirt make it cross the line, could be safely posted without being against the rules.

The sfw switch will create room for leeway, which allows more prurient images to be posted without causing distress. We aren't trying to clamp down on nsfw stuff to be arbitrary: we are doing it because a substantial portion of the community feels that the fetishistic stuff is offensive to them, whereas other sexual stuff is not."

Therefore, while we can be upset in principle about the inequality, and i am, in reality it's a bias of the majority and so bringing in the bdsm aspect by the term "sub" triggers a lower standard.  But, that majority can be accommodated by using the filter so the sub shirt is ok using the filter.

Presumably the whips n harnesses etc that i'd like to post with, will be ok if not too carried away as well, though i have no illusions that even under the filter some images will get deleted.  Still, i plan to make this a happy home by posting pretty much exclusively under the filter because even tutu ponies bother my friend Rose and though i'd like to say "fuck those haters", his quiet and honest voice last night was compelling to me and i dont want to hurt my friend.

>>840264
No because though it's an outrageous double standard, it's a fact of the community.

So we'll have to hide under a filter and that's just how it has to be.  

As long as the filter is implemented with an easing of the rules as Moons just promised.  Which, when it's implemented, i'd like to see made clear explicitly in the rules.

 No.3236

File: 1538712892255.png (134.83 KB, 450x261, 50:29, 5.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3235
My problem is that I am unconvinced it's a standard held by the majority, to begin with, as it isn't like we've ever even held a vote, and of course, I wouldn't really support it regardless, as I do not like mistreatment of a minority because of the whims of the majority.

I think there's a massive difference between not posting a thing that makes a friend uncomfortable because he mentioned it, and outright forbidding a thing.
Especially when other items that certainly make others uncomfortable are left alone.

Again, going back to the naked chick with only hair covering her tits. It's pretty damn sexually provocative, you ask me, and while I'd prefer it be allowed to be posted, I don't like it, and tend to hide the sort of image whenever I come across them.
But, of course, we don't judge by my standards for what is uncomfortable, we go off of an assumed "majority" without any evidence provided for that being the case, and ignore complaints that fall outside of this assumed "majority".

 No.3237

>>3236
Why do you say we didn't vote on it?

80% voted in favor of the Rule 3 current version, which does not include punishing us just deleting our image.

There was a version that included whipping us pretty hard that was not chosen so the majority that doesnt want fetish images doesn't want to discipline us for making a misjudgment.

 No.3238

>>3237
Because the rule did not specific this type of item. It didn't say what is or is not acceptable, it didn't ask what standards we should be enforcing, it was purely what rule specifically we should use.
If anything, the vote suggests people don't want this sort of content restricted as heavily, given that the laxer choice was taken.

 No.3239

>>3238
The rule picked was no fetishistic content that is "sexually charged".

The non-fetish rule of not obscene has been clarified to include "prurient" which is rather similar if not quite the same.

The filter has been promised to let us have fetishistic content.

 No.3240

>>3239
I'm not sure what you mean.
As to the filter, it seems to be the rules're going to stay the same, it's just they're going to be even vaguer about what is and is not acceptable.

 No.3241

File: 1538715139010.jpg (468.2 KB, 2045x2445, 409:489, 20181004_214706-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3240
I think we're just going to have to wait and see.

Does this even look like Big Mac?  Its harder than i thought.

 No.3242

File: 1538715218236.png (74.27 KB, 298x229, 298:229, 1.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3241
As far as the NSFW filter, yeah.
Still, there's room to continue complaining, at the very least.
And, like I said earlier, given that we ended up with a laxer ruleset than where we started, I do believe that there's a difference to be made here.

 No.3243

>>3241
>Big Mac
I thought it was BoJack Horseman's dad? :fluf2:

 No.3244

File: 1538718092685.jpg (551.17 KB, 2301x1484, 2301:1484, 20181003_002607-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3243
I dunno jack about bojack.

Was that a dig or a compliment?

Either way i'll take it.

>>3242
As you were then.

I'm standing by to see the things promised materialize before i bitch too much more.  I feel we've made our point and i want to show some patience.  I still agree with you about the principles.

 No.3245

File: 1538718302924.png (87.14 KB, 352x298, 176:149, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3244
It probably helps that, for me, I'm not really arguing in favour of a particular item being allowed, as I am arguing about the principle. As said. I don't really care that much about the specific image. Beyond that it annoys me it's not allowed, and other items are, anyway. It doesn't hold some personal meaning to me, or anything like that. It isn't part of my identity. It isn't even something I use as an avatar.
Gives me a lot more leeway on what I can argue, and where I can do it.

 No.3246

File: 1538719062758.jpg (76.67 KB, 576x960, 3:5, q5rjc4izzqbz.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3233
>Still don;t get how the shirt is what draws it over the line.
Maybe because it makes it explicit that it is a BDSM fetish image.  A picture with just collar and leash by themselves would be ambiguous.

 No.3247

File: 1538719274551.png (278.75 KB, 477x342, 53:38, Capture (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3246
I dunno, man, a collar and a leash, especially one being offered to someone, seems far more indicative of petplay than a simple shirt. It's also a direct indicator, as opposed to a simple reference.

I think that might be the larger issue, though. I see it as referencing the fetish, but not being something that makes it the fetish. In the same way that I don't think a shirt that says "I like to fuck in the missionary position" is inherently sexual. It's referencing sex, by all means, but, in and of itself, there's nothing there.

 No.3248

File: 1538719533223.png (383.09 KB, 586x1000, 293:500, 1537564689771.png) ImgOps Google

>>3247
Well, is it really "pet play" if Charizard is literally a pet???

>>3247
>In the same way that I don't think a shirt that says "I like to fuck in the missionary position" is inherently sexual. It's referencing sex, by all means, but...
When people say that the shirt is sexual, what they mean is that it directly references sex.  That's just how people use language sometimes.

 No.3249

File: 1538719751792.png (595.09 KB, 1408x1352, 176:169, a3d2aaf51ee62a96299e7f5978….png) ImgOps Google

>>3248
In this particular case, the charizard's speaking english, so, I think it's atypical of your standard pokemon. And, of course, whether or not pokemon are inherently just animals is another matter entirely.
I do think the standard pokemon lot adds another interesting element to the thing, though.

Mmm, then the rule's definition needs to be changed. Because I certainly don't see it that way, and, I wouldn't want it to be enforced in that way, as, that'd mean we have an extremely tight standard when it comes to these rules, since many items could be argued as referencing sex.
As I had suggest earlier, would this image be acceptable, if that was the case?
"I want another" directly references sexual intercourse in an effort to have another child.

 No.3250

>>3249
>"I want another" directly references sexual intercourse in an effort to have another child.
No, it doesn't.  E.g., artificial insemination.

 No.3251

File: 1538720334974.gif (1.16 MB, 284x304, 71:76, tumblr_paau8cHT1j1tcfr2co1….gif) ImgOps Google

>>3250
Doesn't that still involve sticking up a thing in a hole?
And, of course, this is leaving aside the pregnancy fetish.

 No.3252

What are we arguing about now?

 No.3253

File: 1538720536422.jpg (37.43 KB, 636x310, 318:155, nge-doge-b41.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3251
>Doesn't that still involve sticking up a thing in a hole?
What's your point?  That's not inherently sexual.

>>3251
>And, of course, this is leaving aside the pregnancy fetish.
Again, not even a direct reference to pregancy, never mind pregancy fetish.

What's potentially disallowed is directly referring to specifics of a sexual act (e.g., that's in missionary position, or that one partner is playing a sub role).

 No.3254

File: 1538720629908.png (22.81 KB, 376x402, 188:201, kobolds.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3253
What constitutes "direct" for you?
I would've thought "I want another" is pretty damn direct.

 No.3255

File: 1538720685564.png (65.65 KB, 500x396, 125:99, tumblr_inline_p43yadtetb1s….png) ImgOps Google

>>3252
Definitions, again. Apparently, at least according to >>3248 , references to sexual content are not allowed.

 No.3256

>>3255 I'm tired of arguing the same things over and over :twi7:

 No.3257

File: 1538720878901.jpg (266.66 KB, 1600x1000, 8:5, 143294209883.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3254
>What constitutes "direct" for you?
A word or phrase that denotes the thing in question.  
Neither "I", "want", or "another" (either alone or in combination) denotes anything sexual.

>>3255
>references to sexual content are not allowed.
Not precisely.  What's potentially disallowed is directly referring to specifics of a sexual act (e.g., that's in missionary position, or that one partner is playing a sub role).

 No.3258

>>3256
Welcome to the club.
>>3257
I would argue "sub as fuck" does not denote anything sexual, either, then, as submissive has more than one meaning.

Though this is assuming your interpretation is the one that the mods are using. Unfortunately, this is still as of yet unclear. And, of course, if it is, I would deeply prefer they'd use the proper words within the writing of the rules.

 No.3259

>>3257
>>3258
Sub clearly means submarine

 No.3260

>>3258
>I would argue "sub as fuck" does not denote anything sexual, either, then, as submissive has more than one meaning.
Come on, you're not arguing that it means "subscript as fuck", are you?  It's very clear from context it refers to playing the submissive role in BDSM.

 No.3261

File: 1538721102489.png (148.32 KB, 590x741, 590:741, DgT3HyWU0AA2APZ.png) ImgOps Google

>>3260
A submissive rule does not necessitate sex.
Do you think you could not have a submissive wife? Is that not a term you've heard before in your lifetime, used to refer to someone who quietly obeys?

 No.3262

>>3260
>>3261
The argument literally doesn't matter unless random anon #572 here is saying it SHOULD be banned.

 No.3263

>>3262
I believe anon is arguing that the definition of the rules mean that it should be, yes.
It seemed to be he was arguing the rules were saying references to sexual content. As opposed to simply being sexual in nature, which I do not believe is implicit in something that references sex.

 No.3264

>>3263 that would be an absurd position to argue, Otherwise me saying "diaper fetish" would get me banned.  Is this what anon wants?

 No.3265

File: 1538721536682.jpg (149.9 KB, 500x690, 50:69, OH GOD WHY.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3264
Does the rule apply to words as well? I had thought it was only images. Otherwise, though, that's a very fair point.

 No.3266

>>3261
OK, but that's clearly not what the shirt is referring to.  I mean, perhaps you're just innocent and don't get the BDSM reference, but anyone experienced in these things can tell you that it is certainly denoting a BDSM role.

>>3263
>I believe anon is arguing that the definition of the rules mean that it should be, yes.
Not really.  I'm not arguing that it is "sexually charged" (and frankly I have little idea what that phrase is supposed to capture).  I'm just arguing that "sub as fuck" is definitely sexual in nature.

 No.3267

>>3265
>Does the rule apply to words as well?
Yes, it definitely does.

 No.3268

>>3264
>Otherwise me saying "diaper fetish" would get me banned.
Eh, not really.  But saying "I get sexually aroused by shitting in diapers" would likely be a rule violation in most contexts.

 No.3269

File: 1538721870630.png (488.81 KB, 1124x953, 1124:953, tumblr_ou7tggQnNr1urgomdo2….png) ImgOps Google

>>3266
I think it's referring to being submissive. I don't think that being submissive necessarily equates to sex, automatically.

Right, but, you're arguing that "sexually charged" counts as "referencing sex".
>>3267
Fair enough. In that case, it's even dumber, as, I'm personally quite opposed to banning people who say they are "submissive as fuck".

 No.3270

File: 1538721874611.jpeg (25.66 KB, 300x168, 25:14, download (12).jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3268
No its images.

>>3259
Pic.

Does it turn you on?  If so, it's a violation.

 No.3271

>>3265 well, a reference is a reference, whether text or image
>>3268 if I say "other people get aroused sexually by shitting in diapers" is that a rule violation in your expert opinion?

 No.3272

>>3269
They could be subscribers to many youtube channels.

 No.3273

>>3271
Its clearly images.

 No.3274

>>3263
>It seemed to be he was arguing the rules were saying references to sexual content.
No, for the 3rd time.  It's not references merely to sexual content.  It is explicit details of sexual acts (such as the act being in missionary position or the act involving one partner playing a sub role).

>>3271
>if I say "other people get aroused sexually by shitting in diapers" is that a rule violation
Depends on context.  If you just pop into a random thread and post that text without it being relevant to the thread, then probably it would be a violation.  If you're intending to be informative rather than just posting sexual stuff for shits and giggles, then it would probably be okay.  As Moony said, intent matters.

 No.3275

>>3270
>No its images.
The text of the rule doesn't indicate any restriction to images.  What makes you think it applies only to images?

 No.3276

File: 1538722572299.jpg (135.69 KB, 800x539, 800:539, ea701684fa54ac8f7fb6a077a3….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3274
This is pretty much just semantics. You've already established that as your position, and I'm debating on that ground. All you're doing here is adding a worthless descriptor to basically say that you believe there's a gray area around what is referenced, but, because we are not magical mind readers, and these rules are applied by humans with differing opinions, what precisely constitutes "explicit" for you.
Given what you use to establish what constitutes "explicit" for you, I do not believe you and I, for instance, agree. In that regard, whether or not you say "it's only for explicit content" is irrelevant, from where I stand, as, again, I don't know you, your position, or your standards, and I certainly don't agree with them.

And, I must say, I really do hope it isn't the case that this is the standard for the rule, as it'd be exceptionally broad. It seems to me it'd catch countless users in quite a wide range of items, especially given the complete "up to interpretation" nature of this, further compounded by your reply to boat when it comes to how it apparently depends on the context.
Essentially, it seems to me that you've taken an exceptionally vague and difficult to understand rule, and are actively trying to make it worse. More vague, worse to understand, even more up to personal interpretation.
Seems to be explicitly the sort of thing I'd desire to avoid like the plague, myself

 No.3277

File: 1538722829702.jpg (358.57 KB, 840x840, 1:1, pinkie_pie_plays_guitar__b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3275
The rules say "content" but some of them day "content depicting".

Further, the standard.  If sexual, stay within risque but not obscene, if fetishistic then not sexually charged.

Being sexual or fetishistic isn't enough.  While i suppose words can be obscene or sexually charged they'd have to go beyond "i get off on xyz" to rise to onscene or sexually charged.


Getting so far afield as to argue whether saying you like a sex position or what fetish you like is a sexual referencw really far exceeds the scope of rules discussion because those things are neither obscene or sexually charged.

Getting into details might.

 No.3278

>>3272 advertising!
>>3274 so if Star asks what your type is, what you're looking for in an ideal mate... And I answer honestly, my ideal is someone into X, Y, and Z, where X, Y, and Z are specific fetishes, how long should I be banned?  2 weeks?  1 year total?  Or 1 year per fetish?  Be honest.
>>3276 this

 No.3279

File: 1538723242872.png (361.35 KB, 1256x526, 628:263, 1404338648338.png) ImgOps Google

>>3277
>Getting so far afield as to argue whether saying you like a sex position or what fetish you like is a sexual referencw really far exceeds the scope of rules discussion because those things are neither obscene or sexually charged.
Come on, if you made a thread with the body "The missionary position [is / is not] my favorite sexual position", what do you really think would happen?

 No.3280

>>3278
> if Star asks what your type is, what you're looking for in an ideal mate... And I answer honestly, my ideal is someone into X, Y, and Z, where X, Y, and Z are specific fetishes, how long should I be banned?
That would fall under "If you're intending to be informative rather than just posting sexual stuff for shits and giggles, then it would probably be okay."

 No.3281

File: 1538723322129.png (163.78 KB, 879x823, 879:823, 589e2a2869705263a2387ddc11….png) ImgOps Google

>>3279
Fake outrage, along the lines of handholding.

 No.3282

File: 1538723443186.gif (1.39 MB, 478x360, 239:180, holding-hands-lewd.gif) ImgOps Google

>>3281
>handholding
Ewww, that's disgusting!  What a pervert!

 No.3283

File: 1538723503028.jpg (103.6 KB, 900x1080, 5:6, kisspng-pinkie-pie-pony-br….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3279
See >>3280

>>3278
One year per fetish is sounding kinda bdsm.  If that were to happen then Ponyville itself would be in violation of adult rule 3, and if you didnt ban evade, you'd be sub as fuck.

 No.3284

>>3280 that doesn't seem consistent with what you said previously.  See >>3268

 No.3285

>>3284
Key word in >>3268 is "most".

 No.3286

File: 1538723638427.jpg (2 MB, 4674x2862, 779:477, 7aa83f17e6b1f0af38249727ce….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3278
30 years in the iso-cubes, obviously.

 No.3287

>>3285
Yeh, like I said earlier, you seem to be making it extremely vague and difficult to follow.
Seems like any reasonable user would just have to never, ever, post anything that could potentially be considered sexual, lest they get banned.

 No.3288

>>3287
Fortunately, not in charge here.

 No.3289

>>3285 sound like you just want to make an exception because you don't want to admit you want me gone for the same thing you literally just said.
>>3283 lose lose
>>3286 no different from the status quo :twi7:

 No.3290

File: 1538723945715.png (197.72 KB, 549x800, 549:800, 1580.png) ImgOps Google

>>3283
> >>840413 (You)
> See >>3280 (You)
Is that really what you think?  I'd dare you to go ahead and make such a thread, but I'm afraid you'd actually do it and get punished for it.

 No.3291

>>3290 I'm just following your logic to its conclusion

 No.3292

File: 1538724286852.png (99.05 KB, 600x581, 600:581, 1538441799390.png) ImgOps Google

>>3290
I considered doing so, however while the topic would be risque and not obscene, the conversation would quickly go that way and the OP would be the bait that brought on the trouble.

Could also mess with political drama.

Also i've already been warned to be more "tame" with my posts so i would quickly work my way up the statutory mandatory sentencing scale and ironically it wouldn't even be for directly violating the adult content rules.

Maybe you should do it.

 No.3293

>>3292
I'd give it a shot if I wasn't lazy, and it wasn't 2:30 AM.
I think you could do it pretty decently, going more the meme direction, baiting towards the handholding lot, I mentioned earlier.

 No.3294

Well I'm going to bed.  Good night

 No.3295


 No.3296

File: 1538724823424.jpg (11.17 KB, 300x168, 25:14, images.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3292
And therein lies the issue for all parties.


Why -not- just post more tamely? Not just for the sake of the rules, but for your fellow posters who don't appreciate that stuff?

And posters who don't appreciate that stuff, why not take the high road and just try to be a bit more tolerant of stuff that is so mildly fetishistic that i seriously don't even know what it is about!

None of this would be necessary if we were all willing to be a bit friendlier towards each other.

Instead, i get all sorts of folks telling me they're ready to leave over too many fetish pictures, or not enough fetish pictures.

Why not give a little? i have given much to find a middle ground. Maybe the filter can help to solve that. But unless you all are willing to contribute and help us find that middle ground, one side or the other shall be disproportionately upset at the outcome of all of this.

If we could just be respectful of when and where we put our sexually charged posts, and understand too that some folks like that stuff and you can hide threads or make your own thread or post in a different thread or ask them to stop... Then we could all get along, yes?

Can you do that for me?? If so, we will not have to sit here debating the spirit of the rules as if it is the rules that are at fault for all of this

 No.3297

>>3292
>Maybe you should do it.
I'm of the opinion that it would violate the rules.

>>3291
>>3289
My logic is that it depends a lot on context.  If it is presented in a 'medical' context, then it's not "sexually charged".  If it's posted for shits and giggles, then it's more likely to be interpreted as sexually charged.

Also, just to be clear: I've been arguing about how I think the rules actually would apply in various scenarios.  I haven't commented on whether I think the rules are good or bad (i.e., whether the rules *should* be such that certain things are or are not bannable).

 No.3298

File: 1538725973749.jpg (31.42 KB, 564x630, 94:105, meniquie-clipart-8.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3296
Moons i agree with you.

I think the root of the problem is not too much or too little of any sort of content, but far too much tolerance for unkindness.

I don't know what you're doing up this late when you should be sleeping.  You probably didn't have time to go back through the thread, just before my pony spamming, and see why i stopped arguing against the new rules:  Rose came into the conversation and when asked very gently said that the fetish stuff makes him uncomfortable, even tutus!  But that he puts up with those to be my friend.  

When it's unknown complainers or someone screaming but refusing to engage politely, it's easy to stand and defend at all cost for what you think is right or fair.

When Rose was so nice about it, it melted my heart.  I don't care as much about "fair" as being kind to my friend!

You remember Moons that i screamed loudly a while back about Manley being unkind to me, and how it made me feel when no one stood up for kindness.  I stomped away and screamed at you from reports while not even participating.

I came back when someone pointed out to me how my screaming made you feel.  I think you know who that is.  I think, too many have screamed at you and not considered how it makes you feel.

What we needed here is not changes to the rules, but to enforce our dearest most precious rule:  Be Kind To Each Other.

Why are we here if not to share kindness.  Yes, i could be more kind.  Almost all of us could.  But that means the leadership should focus more on calling people on being unkind, and less waiting for hurt feelings to figure out what rules were broken.

No one is kinder than you, Moons.  Why not demand that we try harder to be kind too?  That is what is needed, my dear pony friend.


>>840438
When i said "maybe you should do it" i was joking of course but it wasn't a very nice joke and i'm sorry.

 No.3299

File: 1538726018578.png (98.17 KB, 292x216, 73:54, cereal.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3296
Meh. If someone had the decency to directly come up to me and say they've got an issue with what I post, I'd be inclined to do as they desire. No issue there.
Problem is, I've yet to have anyone do that, and, the whole lizard pic honestly seemed to come as a result of a rather butthurt anon upset at my arguments where the picture had come in to play.

And of course, there's plenty of other content people post, quite often, that I don't appreciate. I've certainly seen plenty of items I quite dislike. That sort of item, though, seems to be allowed. Albeit, I don't report it anyway, since, I'm of the position that you should tolerate your fellow poster, but, still.

All this aside, though, for myself, none of that is the issue. The community doesn't matter, as far as my complains go, as my complains do not concern community reactions when it comes to these items. As I have said earlier, the image in question for myself has very little reaction from me, outside of simple annoyance that it isn't allowed. It is just cute to me.
My complaint is, and has always been, that it seems to be unfair.

 No.3300

File: 1538726656607.jpg (147.24 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1477493442401.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3299
> the whole lizard pic honestly seemed to come as a result of a rather butthurt anon upset at my arguments where the picture had come in to play.
Oh, that reminds me!  It seems the staff has been interpreting reports as a signal that the reporter is displeased by the content being reported.  But that is not necessarily true.  The user could be reporting it just out of vengence, as Noonim says.  Or the user could be reporting it simply because he thinks it violates the rules even though he is perfectly fine with the content.  So reports shouldn't be taken as a definitive indication that people don't like the content.

Also, it would be nice to see the outcome of how reports are adjudicated.  E.g., if you report something, but the mods decide the reported content doesn't violate the rules, it would be nice to inform the reporter of this, so that he might refrain from reporting similar content in teh future.  I wonder if it would be easy to implement a public list of recent reports and how they were decided by the staff.

 No.3301

File: 1538726790613.png (181.12 KB, 350x294, 25:21, 8.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3300
Pretty much. Which is why I had opposed the whole "reports carry more weight" rule proposal quite heavily, during the vote.

>Also, it would be nice to see the outcome of how reports are adjudicated.  
Definitely second this. It'd be very nice to see what comes of reports made, as opposed to the questioning "did anyone see it? Did it go through' type of deal, I usually get.

 No.3302

>>3299
Exactly this, Moons.

For example, in a thread one night Jade reported on images of Nooms and mine "just to make a point".  That's the night Wizard came sweeping in and deleted our images over quibbly hairsplits like Pinky's diaper and the lizard's leash, claiming fetish content while he avatared with a Rainbow Dash image set that included a BDSM bondage collar.

It's unfair and hypocritical to hairsplit the judgment criteria especially when the mods are used on each other like attack dogs.

It's a culture of tolerating unkindness that's beneath all of this discomfort, Moons.  I think if you put up a poll and asked if people think the kindness rule is enforced too little, and whether that is the real problem, i truly believe an overwhelming majority is going to answer YES.

 No.3303

I have no idea who the hell any of these people are.

 No.3304

>>3296
>If we could just be respectful of when and where we put our sexually charged posts, and understand too that some folks like that stuff and you can hide threads or make your own thread or post in a different thread or ask them to stop... Then we could all get along, yes?
>Can you do that for me?? If so, we will not have to sit here debating the spirit of the rules as if it is the rules that are at fault for all of this
I mean... This sounds great and I agree with you 100%, but this is not how the rules are written.  This is also not how the mods have moderated in the past.  And it also runs counter to your previous statements encouraging people to basically report every little thing they take issue with.  Aside from all that, I agree with the sentiment.
>>3297 My point was that it's the same exact response in both cases, presumably to the same question, yet the hypothetical answer you have taken issue with, while applying special pleading in my case for no apparent reason.
>>3303 sounds like a personal problem

 No.3305


Okay for real I would really appreciate it if y'all didn't post this content that you're aware is causing discomfort with the community in the thread where we're supposed to be discussing it. It feels agressive. Is it meant to be?

I know you're allowed to post stuff that would fit under the lewd content filter, but how the hell is anyone expected to communicate amicably with you guys and try to resolve this if the thread is intentionally saturated with the exact thing that makes the people that could offer opposing views the most uncomfortable.

Spoil it or something, or make a thread where you can dump it and discuss it if you need to get it out of your system. This can without much stretching be interpreted as spam or a violation of other content rules, and I do not want to be the one that brings this out to the mod team, so that we have to start discussing taking action and maybe in that process end up further marginalizing you guys.

Mostly talking to you, Lostpony. You even aknowledge in your posts that you know it's offensive to some.

It's a nice thing to keep in mind in general, though.

 No.3306

I haven't been able to keep up entirely with the argument here, but the take away I am getting is that to users like boat, lp, and noonim, this is about fairness, right?

Like, you think rules should be enforced without prejudice across the board with regards to sexual (and sometimes not sexual as in the case with diapers) content, right? I want to propose an argument to the pro-fairness people and just want to be sure I'm getting their argument understood so I don't do any strawmaning or anything. If I could get confirmation, from the perspective that I haven't seen everything said here, that's be nice. If you could sum up your stance too, that'd be great.

 No.3307

>>3306 I wrote a long and frank post in a previous thread that sums up my issues with the unfairness.  I'm on my phone right now and so i can find it and link to it later if you like.  I directed Rose to it earlier in this thread if you'd like to find it yourself.

 No.3308

File: 1538762570129.png (883.45 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100512.png) ImgOps Google

>>3268
>Eh, not really.  But saying "I get sexually aroused by shitting in diapers" would likely be a rule violation in most contexts.

Ridiculous.

 No.3309

>>3306
Eh, more or less. I can't speak for the others, and of course there's more not to be had, but, I'd like to see your argument regardless.

 No.3310

>>3307

Was it this one?
>>830940

 No.3311

>>3310  yes

 No.3312

>>3311
I never actually responded to that, did I?

I do appreciate the fact that you've been keeping your fetish apart from the site out of consideration for the userbase for a long time now, and the fact that you try to come with good logical argument structures to convey why you're feeling slighted, that's very cool.

 No.3313

File: 1538763934515.png (1.11 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100316.png) ImgOps Google

>>3310
I have no idea why you brought me into this seeing as how I've been on your side this entire time.

 No.3314

>>3313
You've made a number of arguments a fair few times, usually backing away saying you aren't actually arguing in favor of anything whenever people argue against it.
In this case you are brought up in that post because you did decide to input your feelings in that regard, and ⛵ felt this was not a valid argument.

 No.3315

>>3307
>>3309
Ok, so how I see it, all these images belong on a spectrum. You can imagine it as on the far side we have all images that everyone or most people are comfortable with. Then you move further down the spectrum and more and more people don't like the image. It guess something like, cat pics -> big boobs -> lizards with collars -> diapers on adults -> other stuff -> lolicon -> etc. That's just some rough crap I put together, I don't care so much to debate the finer points of where things belong on the spectrum or even how much distance is between items on that example. But, you see that the job of staff is to draw the line somewhere on this spectrum, yes? In a place as to let people be as free and equal as possible while also making everyone as comfortable as possible. But where to draw it? Like, I totally understand the argument that we just draw the line at anything sexual or hinting at sexual at all, because it is rather fair and consistent. But if we are gonna choose a place in the middle of that spectrum, where is it going to be? Is lolicon fine? And if not, why is it not? These are not hypothetical questions either, should all (and I mean all!) sexuality be considered equal, so long as it's not porn?

Like, ok, I understand when you insert pedophila (and I'm only taking about pedophilia in the context of things within the bounds of the law, of course. Actual CP and stuff like that is not what I'm talking about right now) into a conversation suddenly the stakes go through the roof and everyone get very emotional and angers flare. I get it. But if we are going to talk about the concept of fairness then I think this is very important to address. So like, I'm not comparing anyone to pedophiles but I am bringing it into the conversation because if fairness is your objective, I need to know who we think deserves fairness and why. Everyone regardless of what they are into, or some subset of sexuality we approve of? And if it's the latter, what is the difference between your arguments against one thing that's further down the spectrum versus the argument against where your own fetish lies?

And I'd ask before dumping on me in response, because honestly just bringing it up like this in this context might provoke that kind of response against me, I'm just trying to bridge the gap of understanding here. My understanding of you and your understanding of everyone against the things you might want to post under the idea of fairness. So, be kind, ok? Like, I had this same kind of conversation with my sister in law once and no matter how reasonable I was, she completely blew up on me because I guess anything less than full demonization of pedophiles makes you a monster (or maybe a closet pedophile yourself), and that's something that I don't think is fair.

 No.3316

>>3315
>But, you see that the job of staff is to draw the line somewhere on this spectrum, yes
Not necessarily. That depends entirely on the underlying principle. You seem to suggest later on that it might be the principle of the staff to make everyone comfortable.
Well, okay, let's work from that. are there people made uncomfortable by removing content?
is there content not being removed that is also making people uncomfortable?
in this regard, do we only care about the discomfort of the majority?
If so, then that I take issue with. I don't like considering only the majority. As suggested earlier, I think that's largely unfair.

 No.3317

File: 1538771661187.jpeg (124.54 KB, 1032x774, 4:3, 1538031064519.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3305
This list of images genuinely astounds me.  I was trying to make things fun and it makes me very sad Rose that you would think i spent an hour ponying the place up just to be mean.  I was trying to be the best me i can be and make people happy, and it seems that a lost pony can only make people feel bad.

You're not alone, Moony was upset with me about that too.

It looks very much like regardless of my intent and attempt to add something positive here, that the kindest thing a lost pony can do for people using this site is to be somewhere else.

I want to reiterate that i did not intend any harm and it is with a broken heart that i wish you all find whatever it is you need, that you're looking for.

 No.3318

>>3312 thank you for recognizing my points; I appreciate it
>>3313 I didn't mean to bring up the argument again but it summarizes my points very well.  This was in response to what I considered a gross mischaracterization of my stance, after I deleted my posts, and people were still talking about me.
>>3315 I will address this once I can type more effectively on my laptop

 No.3319

File: 1538772023616.jpeg (73.17 KB, 591x600, 197:200, 34.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>840558
Ah, I'm sorry, dude. my tone was too harsh. I have to work on that, I can be a real hardass. I hadn't noticed you'd already been talked to about it.

It's not like it's not something you can't learn either. I mean, cheering up the place with the same images that are the base of the controversy to begin with, you must have had some idea this wasn't the greatest plan to begin with?

If you do decide to leave, and I wouldn't blame you if you do based on all the conflict you've already found here, I do hope we can still talk on Discord. I would like that a lot, away from the controversy here.

 No.3320

>>3317
Just for future reference, the mistake you made was doing an image dump in a serious thread.  Don't do that in the future; make your own thread for it.

 No.3321

>>3319
> >>3316
Um, I think you replied to the wrong post.

 No.3322

>>3321
yup fixing it now

 No.3323

>>3317
I feel like I was being a dick, actually.

I like you a lot, and I should make more of an effort to accept you the way you are Right now I'm just making life hard for you with my weird half acceptance half anger.

In a lot of ways the worst mistake you can make is getting too angry at someone that means something to you, and you might have been making a mistake, but you meant well, and I should have given you credit for that.

I guess I would have, if I'd understood, so maybe that's really the problem, I don't understand why you do these things, and my intuitive reactions misguide me. Sorry, dude, for ruining your day probably.

 No.3324

>>3315
I'd just like to suggest that some of the objectionable stuff is objectionable on other (non-sexual) grounds and should perhaps fall under a different rule.  E.g., the diaper ponies are repulsive because of they bring to mind an adult choosing to wallow in its own shit.  That's kinda a separate thing than fetish, perhaps more akin to gore.

 No.3325

>>3324
I've been thinking something along these lines for a while. Had trouble articulating it, though.

I think you're right, it's not really a sex thing necessarily that causes issues with the most of the user base when it comes to the diaper images, it's just a convenient and natural rationalization.  

 No.3326

>>3300
>Also, it would be nice to see the outcome of how reports are adjudicated.  E.g., if you report something, but the mods decide the reported content doesn't violate the rules, it would be nice to inform the reporter of this, so that he might refrain from reporting similar content in teh future.  I wonder if it would be easy to implement a public list of recent reports and how they were decided by the staff.

I like this idea.

I have reported things before that I thought might be breaking a rule, but then I got busy IRL and couldn't see what became of it later, so I never knew for sure if it actually did violate a rule, ot I just made a bad judgment call.

 No.3327

>>3315  I'm going to try to lay this out as straightforwardly as I can, but I'm probably going to miss one or more things because I'm in a hurry, so have fun ripping this apart, random anons.  These are just my opinions and I am willing to change my opinion given a better argument.

We have to respect the hosting guidelines.  This means some things are just off the table completely.  porn.  children.  I think we can agree on these since we don't want the site pulled down.

lolis (since you brought it up).  it's a nuanced topic I don't have time to go into.  personally I'm not a fan of lolis in general, especially since they're often sexualized, and they're intended to evoke underaged girls anyway.  so even if it's not 'technically' child sexualization, it may as well be.  I am ok with this falling under the ban on underaged sexualization.

That leaves 'everything else'.  Everything else is on a spectrum as you say.  But there are different spectra.  Different people take offense to different things, so I don't think this is a useful spectrum.  Just saying "I voted for Trump" may offend enough people to have my post deleted.  This is not useful, unless you literally want a tyranny of the majority.

The more useful spectrum, in my opinion, is the extent of sexualization.  Something like completely vanilla > cute > slightly suggestive > make your mom blush > prelude-to-ERP > porn.  This is subjective as well.  But you as an individual can gauge images and where they fall, FOR YOU.  This is because different people interpret different images differently.  This is especially true for fetish images.  Because a person with a fetish may interpret an image REFERENCING that fetish anywhere on the same scale.  A diaper might be cute.  or a diaper might be porn.  a collar may be cute.  or a collar may be porn.  it depends on the image.  and just because you see it as porn, doesn't mean someone else sees it as porn.

Having different standards for conventional sexuality vs fetish material is unfair in general.  See the post Rose linked to for an explanation of why.

People without a fetish are generally REALLY BAD at determining where fetish images fall on the spectrum for people with the fetish.  They can recognize that it REFERENCES the fetish, but not the extent to which it has been sexualized with regard to that fetish.  That is, just because you think someone faps to something, doesn't mean someone faps to it.

People clearly want to continue posting lewd conventional stuff, so banning all lewd isn't an option anyway.

So that leaves,
1) do we treat all sexuality the same,
2) green light some fetishes but red light others, or
3) green light conventional and red light everything else.

I'm a fan of treating all sexuality the same.  I've already explained why in the linked post.

But I don't think this means people should just start going nuts with fetish content either, just as I don't want to see people going nuts with conventional content.

I'm a HUGE fan of the stance Moony proposed this morning.  basically, live and let live.  People know where images fall FOR THEMSELVES and can tone it down to within reasonable limits, sequester this sort of content where people don't have to look at it (threads can be hidden), and others can hide the threads instead of complaining.  It's a simple solution.  It avoids ALL of the complications of having to decide which content is acceptable, as long as people aren't posting porn.  Basically, it's Toybox's suggestion from a while ago: let people post anything that isn't porn - where people are honest about what they consider porn.

What we have now is a two-tiered system, where anything short of porn is ok if it's conventional, but anything even remotely referencing a fetish is subject to higher scrutiny.  which again, doesn't make sense, because people without a fetish are bad at evaluating fetishes.  so by default, everything is deemed hyper-sexual and banned.  It's a ridiculous standard.

And I'm fine with setting the bar somewhere lower than anything-that-isn't porn.  I'd just like for that standard to apply uniformly across the spectrum of sexualized content.

>And if it's the latter, what is the difference between your arguments against one thing that's further down the spectrum versus the argument against where your own fetish lies?
I don't want to differentiate.  Because even if I find something odd or distasteful, it's not my place to judge it.  We've already established it doesn't violate the site hosting guidelines.

>My understanding of you and your understanding of everyone against the things you might want to post under the idea of fairness.
Again, I don't want to post and flaunt my fetish on /pony/.  I'd just like the same standards applied to fetish content as is applied to sexy pokemon, blushing ponies in compromising positions, lingerie-wearing cartoons, hyper-masculine gay furries, characters in compromising positions, and all the other lewd stuff that's posted here.

Have fun ripping this apart.  will be back later.

 No.3328

>>3327
no, i like this train of thought, and i drafted the new rule that we have accepted with that sort of thinking in mind

the question is, are all parties okay with having this sort of thinking?

 No.3329

File: 1538778125058.png (221.68 KB, 800x532, 200:133, 60.png) ImgOps Google

>>3327
I like this idea of allowing almost everything and then trusting people not to go nuts with it. This is the ideal policy I would like to have working.

The only problem i see with it is I don't currently trust most people to properly consider others, and I don't trust everyone (this category includes myself) to always manage to communicate what they find distasteful before they just get angry about it and cause a big fuss.

 No.3330

>>3328
I like it a lot, it's basically the same ideal the whole site was built with. Everyone has a part to play, both respecting others and making it known if an issue really is hard to bear.

 No.3331

>>3327
>We have to respect the hosting guidelines.  This means some things are just off the table completely.  children

 No.3332

File: 1538778486467.jpeg (1.06 MB, 1280x834, 640:417, noodles.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3330
If we can make it work it's great

technically the site was also built to be a sfw site. Just putting that out there.

 No.3333

File: 1538778758776.png (65.37 KB, 330x510, 11:17, 138457938618.png) ImgOps Google

>>3329
>>3330

That's essentially the policy we had already, but there were enough complaints (admittedly, from a minority) that we felt like something should be done.  I thought the filter and the original proposed rules would've been pretty good, but I guess people voted differently.

 No.3334

File: 1538779130802.png (653.09 KB, 719x580, 719:580, unknown-19.png) ImgOps Google

I don't even remember the specifics of the ones that got passed here so I don't know if I like it or not.

but I don't care I guess, ill just keep doing what I've been doing until I get in trouble for it, then Ill decide if I want to change or not.

That's easier than remembering all the rule changes.

 No.3335

>>3328
What specifically do you mean, in that regard? And, how exactly do the rules play on to that?

 No.3336

>>3333
Was that really the policy we had? I would often look at the rules and it seemed to me that they were quite clear and restrictive, but I guess they were viewed more as guidelines than actual rules?

Anyway far as I go, being the main complainer, I find that all but a few of the users that I initially found to be the most offensive have all dissappeared in the ruckus or toned themselves down already. Add to that that I post socially wayyy less frequently than before, it's starting to seem to me as if there's really no reason not to change to this kind of a policy if that's what people want, and if they think they can make it work.

 No.3337


 No.3338

>>3337
Not really sure about the relevance, unfortunately. I mean, these things are listed as rules, right? We are talking about something that has a practical effect, right?

 No.3339

>>3338
I honestly am way to tired now to get into this

Moony might not be around for a while either

 No.3340

>>3339
It's all good, it'll be here tomorrow, so whatever.
these things have been discussed over the course of several weeks now.

 No.3341

Fuck it, you're never too tired to knock out a quick explanation.

SOOOO the relevance is (I think) (keep in mind that I'm really burned out and on my second beer), that presumably if people were respectful about the way they posted, and made an effort not to offend people, and vice versa, people made an effort not to be offended, there would be no need for a rule prohibiting fetishistic content, or it would never have to be even relevant, because there would never be an instance where it was a problem for someone.

 No.3342

>>3327
>specifically asks for equal treatment of all things
>>3328
>agrees with above? in the new rules "drafted with this sort of thinking in mind"
>which contain specific different standards and not a single option for a unified standard.

every option on the ballot had a separate but not equal standard.

a lost pony is completely baffled here as to how defined separate subjective standards meets standards of uniformity.  Where there are two different standards there can be no kindness.

Because no matter how people feel about images those who are subjected to the alternate standard feel marginalized.  It is inevitable and well established by hundreds of years of social development in the US.  Separate cannot ever be equal.

>>3323
You were not being a dick, Rose.  You were expressing how you felt about my misguided act and you were not wrong to say how it made you feel.  You are not alone, moony and at least one other itt criticized it as being a poor choice of action "in a serious thread".

I too was not wrong for expressing that i felt marginalized by this response to my act of posting ponies on a pony site.

And yet, Moony feels i am "threatening to leave", to "manipulate".  While he in fact is manipulated by those directly-worded threats from others demanding action.

Moony i love you and i understand why you feel this way.  But my discomfort does not have any ulterior motive.  I feel further marginalized that you would kick over this site in your rage to please that clear minority who have threatened to leave specifically to manipulate you to act against the majority in their minority interest.  Especially since while you lecture me in private for holding people hostage, you never once stating publicly that you wish i wouldn't leave.  But i understand why, i am not holding you at fault for this.

I accept, some people are simply worth more than others.  This is a fact of life.  That it matters more that a tiny minority of posters be pleased, while pleasing me matters so little.  I am not saying this to shame anyone, elicit pity or hold anyone hostage.  We are not equal, and the proposed new rule choices were drafted specifically to both in observance of, and to foster that reality.  I'm not here to change it.  In fact, i'm only here to clarify that my expression of my hurt in >>3317
was meant to convey ONLY that i was hurt and for NO OTHER REASON.

I am only posting again here to clarify my motives since they, as always, have been misconstrued.

Again Moony i love you very much.  But i am autistic.  That i believe posting a bunch of ponies in a "serious thread" should make everyone feel better is a good example of how my reality simply doesn't match up with everyone else's.  How maybe, my vision of a pony place exists in my own mind apart from reality, how any act i might take simply lacks the cohesiveness to actually bind to the reality of everypo- of everyone else.

Perhaps there IS no place where a lost pony can exist in kindness without hurting someone else.  There was a time, long ago before being socialized with the other kids that a lost pony felt normal, like just a regular person.  A time when he was a baby with a pacifier in his mouth and a nice clean diaper on his bottom under the loving care of the greatest mother to ever walk under this sun.

The very next time in life after that point, a lost pony knows no comfort but only anxiety, always being in trouble, never able to have his attempts at reaching out in kindness accepted as such and returned.  This is why this pony is "lost".  Forever lost, in the hard and ungraspable reality of this world.

Ponies have brought a lost pony much comfort, and seeing Pinky tucked in by mrs cake with a pacifier and clean diaper in loving secure comfort has brought a lost pony back to that moment in his own life.  While demeaning, it is unsurprising that this is interpreted to mean lostpony wants to wallow in his own shit.  Obviously diapers serve no other purpose, cannot be interpreted any other way and a lost pony regrets having attempted to share his own unique feeling from that image with anyone here.

For a time, a lost pony yearned to find a place filled with ponies without judgment.  It is not a disparagement to observe that this is not that place.  There IS no such place.  a lost pony is very sad that he cannot even express his sadness without it being perceived as an attack to hurt other people.  This is why a lost pony does not belong anywhere.

This diatribe i hope will serve to mitigate the idea that a lost pony wishes to compel anyone to do or feel anything.  Including to cry for a lost pony, i do that enough for myself and i don't want any help with that.  I genuinely want you all to be happy.

I am confident, Mr. Moony and the rest of you fine normies in this community, will find a way to make this the best place possible for the most ponies possible.  

Hugs.

 No.3343

File: 1538785568851.png (32.26 KB, 476x476, 1:1, 131032__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>3342
>Separate cannot ever be equal.

I disagree.  Both men and women's bathrooms are equally disgusting and you all make me equally sick as a result.

 No.3344

>>3343
You might be the best person i've ever met.

 No.3345

File: 1538787025323.png (64.43 KB, 580x551, 20:19, 26002__suggestive_blushing….png) ImgOps Google

>>3342
>I feel further marginalized that you would kick over this site in your rage to please that clear minority who have threatened to leave specifically to manipulate you to act against the majority in their minority interest.

Also, so we're clear, the people who would leave or get upset over us leaning one way or the other are a minority in both cases.  The majority is pretty neutral and doesn't care, and might not even notice if the rules change unless it was really drastic.  They probably saw a poll and decided to give their opinion because...why not?

I mean, just look at the thread.  It's filled with discussion from...five people?  The rest of the site is just going about their business.

There's literally no one on the site that we want to leave.  The hope is that everyone can just get what they want and we can go back to a nice status quo where we talk about whatever daily topics we come up with.  But that's hard to do.  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.

And it's especially difficult to even guess with a site like this!  Gosh, half of us don't even watch the show anymore, some because of changes they made, some because we're too busy or lazy to keep up with it all.  We're here entirely and purely for each other, which makes it especially rocky when there's any conflict between users.  We can't point at anything and say "This is what the site is for, talk about that."  We don't put out news, we don't have some web series we produce, we don't collect images, we don't run events.  We're just a big (maybe more medium, really) chat room.  Because the only draw for people to post here is the people, our ability to pick up new users is a flat zilch.  Despite being completely open, it's almost an invite only club just because without an invite you wouldn't know we existed!

And that makes it all the more important to keep up on retention (or reacquisition).  Since the people are the reason there are people here, every time someone leaves it has a sort of ripple effect.  The fewer people that are here, the fewer people that'll want to be here.  We've got to draw lines somewhere, we can't have some nazi spouting propaganda about killing jews, or some rapist posting his collection of child pornography.  But we also have to cast a pretty wide net because the sea is barren and every fish counts.  Which is what leads to this balancing act about how much politics is okay to discuss on the front page, and how sexual can people's posts be.  People want to talk about their favorite way to get laid, is that okay or are those discussions going to frighten more users than they please, and to what extent?

I think I'm just rambling, I'm not sure I even had anything useful to say in the first place.  The short story is I really hope y'all can get along.

>>3344

Well I have to try really hard, because I'm actually a horrible person.  But at least it's working a little.

 No.3346

>>3341
Okay, but, in the same exact way, couldn't people just simply voice their opinions and concerns? As opposed to ever having moderators jumping in and having to delete things in the first place, if people merely went to the users they had issue with, and ask them politely, wouldn't that have worked better?

My point here is, you can't really predict what people are going to be offended by, and it is quite difficult to watch out for such an item. so the blame is as much on the people who felt it necessary to see admin help as it is on those who post the content that ends up being offensive.

And of course, this is leaving aside the issues of Toleration. There are a lot of things that offend me, personally. I don't want them to be removed, however, as I would not want to seem to occur to my posts. In much the same way as you say, my Logic for not reporting things I dont like ends up having to do with the same sort of kindness and empathy.

 No.3347

File: 1538787140459.png (36.69 KB, 412x382, 206:191, I have no idea.png) ImgOps Google

>>3346
>Okay, but, in the same exact way, couldn't people just simply voice their opinions and concerns? As opposed to ever having moderators jumping in and having to delete things in the first place, if people merely went to the users they had issue with, and ask them politely, wouldn't that have worked better?

Yeah.

 No.3348

>>3347
Well, maybe it's worth getting rid of the rule entirely, then.
you'll still have rules against extreme content, and I'd say you could probably use that for any extreme to fictions of fetishistic material, though I think at that point usually it'll be growing to straight up porn anyway.

 No.3349

>>3316
You didn't actually answer any of my questions :/

Like, I'll answer yours if you answer mine, okay?

>>3327
>lolis (since you brought it up).  it's a nuanced topic I don't have time to go into.  personally I'm not a fan of lolis in general, especially since they're often sexualized, and they're intended to evoke underaged girls anyway.  so even if it's not 'technically' child sexualization, it may as well be.  I am ok with this falling under the ban on underaged sexualization.

Why are you okay with that though? If you are on the side of fairness, well I don't think you are being fair right now to this sexual minority. Frankly, I'd be on board with your suggestions if you were going to be treating even loli content the same as you want the rest of the fetish content to be treated. Like, before I start putting words in your mouth or be unfair to your perspective, can you elaborate why it's okay that we put lolicon and pedophilia over there as separate and then only focus on the "everything else"? That feels to me that you are doing to pedophiles what you don't want done to yourself (being treated different for not being in the majority), which doesn't jive with your argument of fairness from the way I'm reading it. Am I mistaken?

>I don't want to differentiate.  Because even if I find something odd or distasteful, it's not my place to judge it.  We've already established it doesn't violate the site hosting guidelines.
But you did, did you not? What with allowing lolicon be its own separate class aside from the rest of the stuff we want to make judgements on.

>Again, I don't want to post and flaunt my fetish on /pony/
Yes, I know, that's why my sentence was a convoluted mess "things you might want to post under the idea of fairness" not just "things you want to post". I am not missing the nuance of your argument.

> I'd just like the same standards applied to fetish content as is applied to sexy pokemon, blushing ponies in compromising positions, lingerie-wearing cartoons, hyper-masculine gay furries, characters in compromising positions, and all the other lewd stuff that's posted here.
Yeah, I'm on board, as long as we don't make a special case or class out of lolicon and pedophilia. If everything that's non-pornographic falls under the same standard, then everything must fall under that standard. That's what fairness is.

 No.3350

>>3349 will take me since time to respond, on my phone and about to go to dinner, but I will respond later

 No.3351

>>3350
Cool, no hate me though, k? I'm sick of being vilified and hated for making this argument with people.

 No.3352

>>3351 no I don't hate you at all.  Just going to take me a long time to elaborate.

 No.3353

>>3352
Lol, well that's a nice change of pace from the usual. If it isn't obvious, I've been burned countless times for making this kind of argument before. We'll see how long you stay not hating me.

 No.3354

>>3349
I skipped it, because ultimately I disagreed with the premise to begin with.
I do not believe a "line" is required.

 No.3355

>>3354
Ok, then you are ok with all non-pornographic content, including sexualized children? If so, I guess we got nothing to discuss ^_^

 No.3356

>>3349
I mean, I guess I can give you a break down if you really want. I am home now, at least, so it's a lot easier than shouting into my phone while driving.
>>3315
>Ok, so how I see it, all these images belong on a spectrum
I disagree. Or at least, I do not think they should be characterized by a spectrum, as I do not think it is conductive to a quality ruleset.
>. But, you see that the job of staff is to draw the line somewhere on this spectrum, yes?
This I also disagree with, for the reasons I stated earlier. It depends on what you want to do, exactly. But, typically, you've got principles, as what the staff's job is, and those might or might not require any lines drawn, regardless of supposed spectrum.
>But if we are gonna choose a place in the middle of that spectrum,
Leaving aside whether we agree with the concept of a spectrum to begin with, why should we choose a place in the middle of said assumed spectrum?
Why not go for a solid rule, as you say you understand a moment ago.
It'd certainly stomp out my own complaints.
The questions that follow, thus, are not ones I feel necessary to entertain, as they are irrelevant to my perspective or my arguments. They're like asking which sodas we should ban.
Well, I don't think we should ban any. Or at least, not for the provided reasoning.
If the soda's poisonous, sure, ban it. If we could get shut down for providing the soda, then yeah, that makes sense, ban it. But, we're starting from a completely different startpoint, here.
>should all (and I mean all!) sexuality be considered equal, so long as it's not porn?
What constitutes "sexuality" to begin with?
Though personally, I'd be inclined to say yes.
And, I'd definitely be inclined to say yes if it's for the set reasons as it currently stands. I disagree with the reasoning, as it seems to favour some people over another. And, I'm not talking some people with a particular sexuality, I'm talking people like myself who don't really enjoy seeing things that are still ultimately allowed on the site.

Bringing CP into the frey is a bit stupid, since it could literally get us pulled from the server. Even loli stuff, if they were so suitably inclined.
The thing that makes children a disliked medium for porn is that they are unable to provide informed consent.
It's the same reason ,you ask me, bestiality is frowned on.
Neither children nor animals are capable of giving informed consent, due to their mental growth.
This is what I mean by different underlying principle. Different reasoning for why we kick these items off.
It isn't because it makes people "uncomfortable". Otherwise, I'd be inclined to say we should remove all things that make folk uncomfortable, lest we be unfair. But, it isn't unfair to apply a simple universal standard.

 No.3357

File: 1538794451068.png (48.55 KB, 227x194, 227:194, 5 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3355
That's a bit of a dick move, my dude.
You can voice your disapproval with how I'm arguing, without going full jerk about it.

 No.3358

File: 1538794542306.png (58.2 KB, 223x195, 223:195, 7 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3355
Ironically, this type of questioning is exactly why I didn't answer to begin with. Because I disagree with the premise of the question.
Same here.
I feel that it's a dishonest way to argue, quite bluntly.

 No.3359

File: 1538794911467.jpg (20.85 KB, 175x145, 35:29, 19.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I really don't see why I'm obligated to answer questions shoved on me that I don't agree with the entire foundation of to begin with, anyway.
Seems to be an absurd thing to ask.

I certainly wouldn't make these absurd demands of you. I wouldn't demand that you answer rigged questions following a flawed logic you never espoused from the start so that you could fall into my traps. I wouldn't get all uppity and accuse you of supporting pedophilia because you didn't happily march in to my leading questions.

 No.3360

>>3356
>I disagree. Or at least, I do not think they should be characterized by a spectrum, as I do not think it is conductive to a quality ruleset.
Ok, like I respect you maybe explained this to other people, but I haven't had the time or do have the time to dig through this thread and try to understand they 'why' of this statement. What kind of quality ruleset doesn't require you to make decisions 'where to draw the line'?

> But, typically, you've got principles, as what the staff's job is, and those might or might not require any lines drawn, regardless of supposed spectrum.
I'm not sure I understand, probably because I am missing context from the rest of your argument you've been making. This is why I was asking people to sum up there argument earlier! Because I don't know all the context people had before. So, I'm sorry, but I don't understand right now.

>Why not go for a solid rule, as you say you understand a moment ago.
Which solid rule I understood a moment ago? I'm not purposely being dense here, lol. I feel like I am missing so much context in your statements right now and maybe I'm stupid, but I am just not following you.

>Bringing CP into the frey is a bit stupid, since it could literally get us pulled from the server. Even loli stuff, if they were so suitably inclined.
I mean, why are you bringing CP into this? Obviously that is not allowed and I never once argued for that. And when was it established that non-pornographic 'loli' stuff could get us in trouble? I don't remember that established anywhere.

>The thing that makes children a disliked medium for porn is that they are unable to provide informed consent.
>It's the same reason ,you ask me, bestiality is frowned on.
>Neither children nor animals are capable of giving informed consent, due to their mental growth.
>This is what I mean by different underlying principle. Different reasoning for why we kick these items off.
>It isn't because it makes people "uncomfortable". Otherwise, I'd be inclined to say we should remove all things that make folk uncomfortable, lest we be unfair. But, it isn't unfair to apply a simple universal standard.

Why is it's okay that we establish a different standard for this content? I could make a different standard for the 'fetish' stuff too if I really wanted to think up some argument. Like, "oh it isn't that we can't have lizards with leashes not because it makes people uncomfortable but because blah blah blah blah". As far as I'm concerned, you are making excuses to not have to include loli in your 'comfortableness' standard. Because it makes everything much more complex and nuanced and hard to think about.

>>3357
>>3358
>>3359
How exactly is that a dick move? How am I being a jerk? I think you are failing really hard to understand my position. Being 'pro-pedophilia' isn't a thought experiment. If you want to treat things with equality and consistency, then I think you have to do that, not just speak lip service to that. I'm not trying to 'trap' you. I'm also completely apathetic to you 'accusing' me of supporting pedophilia because surprise that's my fucking position and I'd just say you were just pinning me accurately. If you want fairness, equality, consistency, then you need fairness, equality, and consistency. Period.

 No.3361

>>3357
Ok, I see it now, why you would think that's a dick move. But it's your own damn fault for not actually explaining your position. You said

>>3354
>I do not believe a "line" is required.

And I took that to mean that you thought all content was okay across the board, including loli content. So I responded that we are in agreement. Don't blame me for getting into these situations if you don't actually want to explain your position to its fullest, ok?

 No.3362

>>3359
Like, it's comical how seriously you have me pinned wrong. I wasn't uppity and making accusations, I was pleased you would be on my side, lol. What I said in this post >>3355
was a 100% genuine sentiment. So, maybe re-read all I've said from the frame of reference? That might help.

 No.3363

File: 1538802520195.png (18.45 KB, 175x145, 35:29, 1538794911467.png) ImgOps Google

>>3359
This dragon is blushing.

Although his posture says sulking, i interpret it as sexual therefore you can't use it anymore.

 No.3364

File: 1538804526176.jpg (69.89 KB, 693x960, 231:320, thinking.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Too much paranoia for my taste.

 No.3365

File: 1538805440817.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

Let us keep in mind the context of our argument here: a small difference in the interpretation of a single rule, on a my little pony website on the internet

We are all friends here. No snark, no big fuss necessary. And no need for getting quite this hypothetical about all this.

Let's just make it like this: for now, as per our interpretation of the rules, light fetish stuff will be treated with all the same protection as regular lewd content, save the most contentious kinds: pedophilia, vore(eat stuff), diaper things, become very big one, and similar "extreme" fetishes: ones that would scare new members from joining the community

We can make a list as they come up, but the typical fetish stuff will be treated the same.

On the condition that when the sfw switch is implemented, all the lewd stuff, fetish and normal alike, should be tagged just in case, all the same


i think that's pretty fair

 No.3366


 No.3367

File: 1538805840378.png (13.77 KB, 300x330, 10:11, xkcd_duty_calls.png) ImgOps Google

>>3365
>Let us keep in mind the context of our argument here: a small difference in the interpretation of a single rule, on a my little pony website on the internet
But Moony!  There are people who are wrong on the Internet!

 No.3368

>>3365
I object to "diaper stuff" being placed on the same list as pedophilia.

Omfg what is wrong with everyone, making it sexual.  It's fucking sick.

The only one who even cares about this is me and i already didn't plan to post it and now it's just been placed on par with wanting to fuck children.  Dammit moons.  This just isn't cool.

 No.3369

File: 1538806022387.png (370.16 KB, 500x629, 500:629, 1492471363813.png) ImgOps Google

>>3368
I've come to agree that the problem with diaper ponies isn't sexual.  See >>3324, >>3325.

 No.3370

File: 1538806044563.jpg (181.98 KB, 850x1202, 425:601, no way.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3366
>>3366
>>3366
Then too much drama for my taste?

 No.3371

File: 1538806428897.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>3368
>>3369
i apologize lp. It is more that it is a sub-category of image that would generally scare new users away.

Pedophilia stuff has its own rule: i was just trying to give some fetish examples i saw in the thread, as i have no idea about those myself

>>3370
>>3368
Absolutely agreed. Let's not get so dramatic or worked up over this. We are trying to figure this out maturely, yes? Let us do that together

 No.3372

>>3369
Fuck you.

>>3371
Permaban me.

 No.3373

File: 1538806859394.png (479.16 KB, 1280x1636, 320:409, a date huh.png) ImgOps Google

>>3365
>>3371

I guess it will be more understandable when the SFW switch with the new rules gets implemented in a beta. For trial and error purposes

 No.3374

File: 1538807238143.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google

>>3368

I mean, a lot of things can be placed on the same list as pedophilia.  It just depends on what the list is about.  I wouldn't take it personally.  Obviously they aren't really comparable.  One is a heinous legal and moral crime, and the other is just kinda niche.

 No.3375

File: 1538807321194.jpg (166.86 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, Fillyflutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3372
>>3372
Lp, you would be so deeply unhappy if you could not post diaper related things?

...please try to be reasonable. You know i do not like to permaban. There is no need, when we can talk together right?

 No.3376

File: 1538807818206.jpg (28.8 KB, 412x500, 103:125, Kafu_Chino.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3372
Dude, take a chill pill.

 No.3377

>>3349  I'm not sure if you're interested in my comprehensive stance on pedophilia, but I'd be happy to go into that if you like.  I don't think it is necessary for the purpose of this response.

:dash7::dash7::dash7::dash7::dash7::dash7::dash7::dash7::dash7:

Child pornography is illegal for the reasons Noonim described.  I agree with the reasoning behind it being illegal.  I don't think I need to go any further into this but I can if you like.

Lolicon is not illegal in the USA and, as far as I know, not against the hosting guidelines either as long as it is not pornographic.  There is a huge controversy I'm sure you're aware of regarding whether lolicon contributes to or dissuades people from turning their attention to real children.  So whether I think lolicon should be banned here comes down to which side of the controversy I happen to be on.  I'm not an expert in lolicon and don't pretend to be, so I can't definitively say it should be banned or not.  However, it is sexualization of children in either case, even if those children are not real.

So if we agree that "sexualization of underaged characters" (e.g. Applebloom) is off limits, then it stands to reason that lolicon should be banned as well.

If that is itself a point of contention, then it comes down to whether sexualization of underaged characters is likely to lead to real life infractions down the line.  On this, I will defer to others, and I am "ok" either way.  That is not to say that I personally like it or want to see it.  In short, I am indifferent as far as principles are concerned because I don't think there is a definitive case for either side.

>But you did, did you not? What with allowing lolicon be its own separate class aside from the rest of the stuff we want to make judgements on.
Yes, and that is specifically because of its linkage (justified or not) with pedophilia.  We've already established that pedophilia can't be present here.  "The rest of the stuff we want to make judgements on" are not directly linked with pedophilia.

>Yeah, I'm on board, as long as we don't make a special case or class out of lolicon and pedophilia.
You're making this incredibly difficult for me.  I'm not sure if that is intentional.  but again, I can go into more detail if you like.
I'm really not sure what you mean when you say pedophilia aside from child pornography.  Child pornography obviously is a no go.  So I'm not able to conceptualize what you're saying here.

>If everything that's non-pornographic falls under the same standard, then everything must fall under that standard. That's what fairness is.
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'm not just pulling double standards out of my ass.  There was thought behind separating underaged characters from other paraphilias.

 No.3378

>>3365  I'm pretty sure that pedophilia isn't a fetish.  Pedophilia and fetishes are all classified as paraphilias.
>for now, as per our interpretation of the rules, light fetish stuff will be treated with all the same protection as regular lewd content
sounds good!
>save the most contentious kinds:
oh no...
>pedophilia
not technically a fetish, but certainly understandable
>vore(eat stuff), diaper things, become very big one, and similar "extreme" fetishes:
I hate being difficult, but again I disagree based on principle
>ones that would scare new members from joining the community
I don't think these are any more likely to scare people off than anything else posted here.  again, assuming people aren't posting straight-up porn and going overboard in their fetish posting, of whatever it is.
>We can make a list as they come up, but the typical fetish stuff will be treated the same.
:twi2:
>On the condition that when the sfw switch is implemented, all the lewd stuff, fetish and normal alike, should be tagged just in case, all the same
that sounds good, though I think there's even less reason to exclude the "extreme" stuff as you put it once the switch is in place

 No.3379

File: 1538809486279.gif (1.02 KB, 27x27, 1:1, fire-sprite-27.gif) ImgOps Google

>>3377
What about rape fetish images?  Do you think those should be against the rules?

 No.3380

>>3379  I'm having a really hard time conceptualizing a "rape fetish" image that isn't porn.  Obviously porn is against the rules.

 No.3381

>>3377
>If that is itself a point of contention, then it comes down to whether sexualization of underaged characters is likely to lead to real life infractions down the line.
Well, even joke images like https://www.ponychan.net/ef/src/1538410440933.jpg are banned here, even though they are unlikely to lead to people committing sexual crimes against children.

 No.3382

>>3381  I don't think jokes should be banned, regardless of topic.  :pinkie11:

 No.3383


>>3382
Mine was deleted and i received a ban for it just a couple days ago here.

Nice and transparent.

 No.3384

File: 1538811181006.jpg (193.8 KB, 1403x992, 1403:992, hug.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3383  I'm sure you feel attacked right now.  Please just take a short break.  I'll be on Discord if you want to talk.

 No.3385

File: 1538813503790.png (98.97 KB, 427x259, 61:37, booze.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3363
It's drunk, is why,
>>3361
If you had read >>3316 , it should've been clear what I had meant, as I had directly stated; "Not necessarily. That depends entirely on the underlying principle. You seem to suggest later on that it might be the principle of the staff to make everyone comfortable.".
I made an effort to explain myself at the start.
>>3362
How genuine can a statement be if it's set with a "If that's true then I don't want to talk to you" at the end?

 No.3386

File: 1538814961058.png (102.48 KB, 360x323, 360:323, 10.png) ImgOps Google

>>3360
It's because vague rules tend to result in users not knowing where the line is, and crossing it accidentally.
> What kind of quality ruleset doesn't require you to make decisions 'where to draw the line'?
Clear rulesets with explained intended goals, generally. Establish the "why" and you can maintain a consistent principle. In this case, it seems to be "because it makes people uncomfortable", but, some things make everyone uncomfortable that we don't remove.
To go to the CP example earlier, a built off of the principle of informed consent when it relates to sexual content would not need a line drawn, as the reason to ban it is clear. It's because it'd be wrong to fuck something which cannot consent. And while this principle can go further to other items, for example rape, that's a bonus you ask me, as you can follow the principle and enforce other items the same way.

>I'm not sure I understand, probably because I am missing context from the rest of your argument you've been making. This is why I was asking people to sum up there argument earlier! Because I don't know all the context people had before. So, I'm sorry, but I don't understand right now.
The context doesn't really add more than that statement alone.
What do you think the staff's ultimate goal is?
What is the underlying principle of the site, the overarching reason for moderating content in this place?
Some places, it might be simply to encourage a specific type of discussion, so they might ban things that are conflicting with that item, such as off-topic content on a w40k reddit. Some places, they want to encourage and facilitate discussion between people of widely differing ideals and thoughts, so their goal is simply to make a place where that can happen, and they might as a result ban things which actively stop productive discussion like threats or spam.

>Which solid rule I understood a moment ago? I'm not purposely being dense here, lol. I feel like I am missing so much context in your statements right now and maybe I'm stupid, but I am just not following you.
You had said >>3315
>"Like, I totally understand the argument that we just draw the line at anything sexual or hinting at sexual at all, because it is rather fair and consistent."
 Which could be worked with, as a way to avoid vague rules that end up not punishing some, while punishing others.
It'd certainly be better, even if I wouldn't like that the underlying principle seems to be things that make users uncomfortable, and it still leaves other items that make users uncomfortable still available. But, it's much, much closer to the ideal.

>I mean, why are you bringing CP into this? Obviously that is not allowed and I never once argued for that.
I'm bringing it up because you mentioned it in your original post, that I was replying to.
>And when was it established that non-pornographic 'loli' stuff could get us in trouble? I don't remember that established anywhere.
I think that depends a lot on whether by 'loli' you mean 2D or not. But, I'm fairly sure sexual pictures of real life kids'll still get you in trouble, if you aren't careful.
Maybe I was wrong about this.
>Why is it's okay that we establish a different standard for this content?
Because the underlying principle is different.
This is like saying "why is it okay to establish a different standard for murderers than people who eat apples".
Because the principles involved are different. People who murder are violating your rights. People who eat apples are just totally lame.
>I could make a different standard for the 'fetish' stuff too if I really wanted to think up some argument. Like, "oh it isn't that we can't have lizards with leashes not because it makes people uncomfortable but because blah blah blah blah".
And if the argument made sense, and couldn't be applied to other items, that'd be fine.

Overall, I think you've just grossly misunderstood my position. I guess you've not been following along much, as you've suggested, but, well, I've been posting at this for a good week at least now, and, I had hoped it'd be pretty clear wherever I've been.
My problem is that the system at hand seems to favor some people's offense over others, essentially.
That is to say, a rule designed to get rid of content because it offends some, doesn't get rid of other content that offends others.
That, and it's vague, and I don't really like vague rules.

 No.3387

>>3365
I'm not opposed to putting it in the lewd side of things, so long as everything else is. Though, does this mean there'll be a change to the rules proper along the lines of the NSFW filter?

Regardless, my main complaint, as said, is mostly the underlying principle here, though, as said. It gets a bit big and hypothetical as a result of these things being more down on the roots of 'why' a rule was made, as it were. Sorry to make a massive fuss, as a result, but, principles are something I care very deeply about.

 No.3388

>>3377
I'm more or less the same. As far as 2D loli stuff goes, I don't really care one way or the other, as, since it's not real, consent doesn't really matter, but at the same time, the underlying reason that makes it wrong is still there, just now it's not actually directed at anyone.
And of course, you could make the same arguments for other content, to a degree, like murder in a video game.
As a result, though, in any case, I've not really got a firm stance, either way.

And, it doesn't matter that much anyway, since, porn is porn, and we ban porn, anyhow.

 No.3389

File: 1538815853499.jpeg (395.16 KB, 752x600, 94:75, 45.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>840656
Jesus, you are so confrontational

Why is it an argument with you, and why is it just nitpicking something or setting up a strawman, it feels like you're trying to make me look bad whenever we interact in any capacity

 No.3390

>>3389
What's so confrontational about that?
How did I make you look bad?

 No.3391

File: 1538816282821.jpeg (48.36 KB, 552x600, 23:25, 19.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>841048
You linked me in your post, it looked like you were responding to a point I didn't touch on

>>3390
If it had been meant for me, like it looked like it was, then it would have been just strawmanning someone after they took a moment out of their night out to help you interpret something

But it's not that, it just looks like that, so forget I said anything I guess.

 No.3392

>>3391
Nah, the post you linked does seem to be directed to you. It showed up as something else, for some reason, a moment ago. Probably a minor glitch.
Though, either way, I guess it isn't really directed at you, but, more, as a general concept to the idea that "if people were more respectful".

Sorry if it came out as confrontational.

 No.3393

File: 1538817041846.jpeg (361.14 KB, 691x600, 691:600, 2.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3392
It's cool, then, if that's how you meant that

I don't know if this helps, but I do this thing too, and to avoid it I would in this kind of a case, if I'm cognizant of it happening, avoid posting a post that starts with "okay, but in the same way"

and instead try to start with, "yes, I agree, and"

Because what it sounds like when you say "okay, but" is that you're reluctantly admitting that someone is saying something useful, and then as quickly as possible moving on to another thing that is wrong to discuss that.

 No.3394

>>3393
and in general I would also want to try and avoid posts that could be interpreted as shooting the messenger I guess.

 No.3395

>>3365
>Let's just make it like this: for now, as per our interpretation of the rules, light fetish stuff will be treated with all the same protection as regular lewd content, save the most contentious kinds: pedophilia, vore(eat stuff), diaper things, become very big one, and similar "extreme" fetishes: ones that would scare new members from joining the community
Just to reiterate, Moony, I don't feel you have any concept of what people actually versed in fetishes consider to be extreme.  Diapers are the tamest thing I can think of; the fact that this made the list does seem like you're going out of your way to ban something lostpony enjoys, without any real justification for doing so.  Also see >>3342
>Ponies have brought a lost pony much comfort, and seeing Pinky tucked in by mrs cake with a pacifier and clean diaper in loving secure comfort has brought a lost pony back to that moment in his own life.  While demeaning, it is unsurprising that this is interpreted to mean lostpony wants to wallow in his own shit.  Obviously diapers serve no other purpose, cannot be interpreted any other way and a lost pony regrets having attempted to share his own unique feeling from that image with anyone here.

 No.3396

>>3395
Provided you don't have any discoloration or stench lines, at which point it's more a scat fetish, I have to agree. Diapers are pretty tame, overall.

 No.3397

>>3365
>>3396
That's also a very important distinction.

 No.3398

File: 1538828366439.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

...to someone like i, who hasn't any idea about fetishes, the leash lizard and diaper are not on the same level.

Nor are regular sexual things like that picture Toybox posted one time that keeps getting referenced here.

If the diapers thing is enough to repel me from the website, i feel it is enough to do more to repel others. And others have made it clear too that there is a distinction to be made here.

i can respect wanting to share content you enjoy. But i cannot just sit here, and say all fetish stuff is okay and on the same level as regular sexy stuff. It absolutely can and will scare visitors away. And there must be some point at which we put the line up for fetish stuff. i thought the line i proposed was very fair!

 No.3399

>>3374
>>3377

Do people seriously not know the definition of pedophilia? Like, sigh, this happens every time. Pedophilia is an attraction towards children. That's it. There is nothing in there about raping or molesting or any other actions. There is nothing about child pornography in that definition. Just an attraction. What someone does (or more importantly doesn't do) with that attraction is what's important.

I don't see what the confusion is boat. Just like people attracted to photographic images of adults can still consume drawn images, a pedophile could be attracted to children and still consume drawn images (in fact if they were to look at porn, I really really hope it is drawn, because actual CP is reprehensible). Like practically my whole point is that while pedophilia is a really unfortunate thing, since you can't actually have sex with children, it's still essentially just an attraction like any other one. And why should it be separated into its own special class if we think all sexuality should be treated equal (which I believe was your argument)? Does that make sense as to why I'm bringing it up?

>>3385
No offense dude but I just can't understand you. Like you don't write things out in a way my brain understands. That isn't an insult directed towards you or anything. I just can't figure out what you mean half the time. I'm sorry about that but what can I do.

>How genuine can a statement be if it's set with a "If that's true then I don't want to talk to you" at the end?
Dude if you drop all the percieved hostility, my post just said "oh, does that mean we agree? If we agree then we don't need to argue" there's even a fucking smilie face there. We clearly are on very different wave lengths because I can't understand what you mean by anything and you can't understand me either it seems.

>>3386
>To go to the CP example earlier, a built off of the principle of informed consent when it relates to sexual content would not need a line drawn, as the reason to ban it is clear. It's because it'd be wrong to fuck something which cannot consent. And while this principle can go further to other items, for example rape, that's a bonus you ask me, as you can follow the principle and enforce other items the same way.

No, what, why? Stop going back to CP because I never argued for that. Like, you understand that the words pedophilia, lolicon, and CP have very specific meanings and nuance and pedophilia doesn't just mean "a person who looks at CP", right?

>Which could be worked with, as a way to avoid vague rules that end up not punishing some, while punishing others.
>It'd certainly be better, even if I wouldn't like that the underlying principle seems to be things that make users uncomfortable, and it still leaves other items that make users uncomfortable still available. But, it's much, much closer to the ideal.
Yeah I'm fine with that. But the point of this discussion I'm trying to have is that if we aren't gonna do that, what are we doing instead.

>I'm bringing it up because you mentioned it in your original post, that I was replying to.
In my original post I explicitly said that CP is not what I was talking about! So it's bizarre you would bring it up multiple times when I started out by saying that's exactly what we should not be discussing because nobody here wants to argue in favor of actual CP.

>I think that depends a lot on whether by 'loli' you mean 2D or not.
So isn't that part of the definition, that it's 2D? Actually it looks like it is sometimes used in reference to the actual real stuff as well, which is not how I wanted it to be used. My mistake. When I'm talking about this thing, all I mean is 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) and at the same time consider ourselves fair and equal and consistent. That's it.

>My problem is that the system at hand seems to favor some people's offense over others, essentially.
>That is to say, a rule designed to get rid of content because it offends some, doesn't get rid of other content that offends others.
Yeah, I think I get it. I just don't understand why you aren't on board with what I'm suggesting then. Because the non pornographic, drawn art I am referring to as loli should fall under the umbrella of things you should think are allowed by this statement. I still don't see a good reason for banning it from you that isn't just about making up a special rule for not liking loli stuff. Like, no art can consent because it is just pixels on a screen or that way by an artist. So the whole consent argument, as it pertains to 2d stuff, is bunk.

>That, and it's vague, and I don't really like vague rules.
I agree. Vagueness isn't a good thing in a rule set. Though I don't think it's really as easy as you think to be rid of vagueness.

 No.3400

File: 1538829854886.png (87.14 KB, 352x298, 176:149, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3398
Different things bother different people.
>>3399
I'm feeling the same way about you. You seem to take issue with things that I don't see any problem with, and I am really having trouble explaining some of the more 'logical thread' type items to you.

>my post just said "oh, does that mean we agree? If we agree then we don't need to argue
So, you're in favor of all non-pornographic content, including sexualized children?
My bad, then. That just seemed like an extreme position. Do have to wonder why you seem to be arguing against that sort of deal, though. But, that's my mistake, I suppose. I thought you were in opposition to allowing such content.

 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 ]