I was actually refering to this:

Quote:4. Should visitors under 18 be able to disable this filter themselves? (this feature implies that the toggle is account-based)

Littly Timmy can easily set his age to 18 years within his account to disable the filters and get full access.

We won't allow date change, then.
Little Timmy could Aldo have a 40yo account, but that's not our problem then

(11-09-2017, 02:23 PM)Davy Jones Wrote: 1. The current system is a warning on the icon and a warning after you clicked on it. This applies to all users who are not logged in. If you're logged in, the second warning vanishes, which is a bit unfortunate. Reason is, when you click on "Recently uploaded sheets" on the main site, you're also not having the first warning because the icons are not visible. The file name does not always give the content away, so maybe a few improvements wouldn't hurt.

I just want to quickly touch on this part as it's not actually true. You chose, at some point, to disable the NSFW filter - an option available to members through the edit profile page (accessible from the user box at the top of the sites). Otherwise, that click-to-reveal option is always on.

(11-09-2017, 02:27 PM)Gors Wrote: this is correct, but if the forum itself has the rule against porn and it is oriented to 13 year olds and over (that is, underaged people) it is not fair to "make little Timmy a man" like this. This should happen anywhere else, not tSR.

This isn't really a fair comparison. Some pixelated frontal nudity is extremely different than posting full-on porn and the sensitivity to both varies drastically. Again, I'm not suggesting we just let NSFW content run wild (hence the current filter we have in place and which I also updated the warning text on to make it more obvious) but making the site difficult to use in the interest of protecting one or two people from seeing anything even slightly distasteful is taking it a little far. That's the purpose of this conversation though - to find an acceptable middle ground.

Quote:4. It's the internet, there is no way to hinder Little Timmy from making himself an adult.

The Day Little Timmy Became A Man



No but seriously, that's why I'm suggesting having two means of filtering content. We can't prevent people from dodging the system; the least you could do is make things a little more tedious by design - that way, people who post complaining about things like

Quote:This is NOT a pronogapic website, so these things, even with a nsfw notice before, should be cleaned up from the site, the pourpose of the site is NOT that.

would have to deliberately go out of their way in order to fully access NSFW content.

People complaining with the reasoning you quoted won't care if it's difficult to access. They want anything objectionable removed form the site entirely, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Petie Wrote:You chose, at some point, to disable the NSFW filter - an option available to members through the edit profile page (accessible from the user box at the top of the sites). Otherwise, that click-to-reveal option is always on.

Ah, thanks for the heads-up. So the NSFW filter is always on, for visitors AND members, where the latter ones can just enable/disable the warnings in their account settings.

(11-09-2017, 03:50 PM)Davy Jones Wrote: Ah, thanks for the heads-up. So the NSFW filter is always on, for visitors AND members, where the latter ones can just enable/disable the warnings in their account settings.

Correct.

(This is a rhetorical post to answer your question. I am going to use assets already posted in the site to validate my point.)

You replied to me that:

(11-09-2017, 03:32 PM)Petie Wrote: This isn't really a fair comparison. Some pixelated frontal nudity is extremely different than posting full-on porn and the sensitivity to both varies drastically.

Alright, this is partially understandable. Pixelart is often low on resolution to be actually graphic as you put but we aren't in 1990 anymore, and you'll find this in the database. In fact, it's one of the recent updates.

Videogame art has now evolved to accept all kinds of art media nowadays, so to say "it's just pixelated bazongas" doesn't cut it anymore. It's not Custer's Revenge tier art. Granted, I had to click on the notice to get this image, and I noticed that the notice has been lenghtened. so that's a good change

(11-09-2017, 03:32 PM)Petie Wrote: making the site difficult to use in the interest of protecting one or two people from seeing anything even slightly distasteful is taking it a little far.

Again, I don't know how site making works, you're focusing too much on my empirical/literal words, of course I don't want to make the site harder to use just because, as you put it, "one or two people" complained about it.

Also, in the same vein, "one or two people" is also very shortsighted because we have 7 billion people in the world. To believe that from this total, only a irrisory percentage of people will get upset is statistically not too empathetic imo. Sure, it was one person now. But are you willing to leave it as it is and risk getting more complaints? just because it doesn't have penetration it doesn't mean it is not porn, the picture up there was made with the intent of arousal.

This being said, I do not intend this system to be added to be 100% failproof. Of course little Timmy can come up with 1001 ways of accessing hidden data, but so is anything on the internet. But just because there's always a way, it doesn't mean that we should be lax. This is more to protect and give ourselves more reasoning should little Timmy's mom decides to upset us. We give ourselves more backup reasoning to roast Timmy and his mom, we win, they lose.

I particularly like the new message before clicking on the sheet, and for me the only other thing it needs is a way to toggle off NSFW icons. there are many options for this, either by hiding them literally or swapping the graphic with a stock [NSFW] pic like in KnowYourMeme/DeviantArt. idk which one is easier/less intrusive to the users; unfortunately i have no experience on this part.

(11-09-2017, 03:32 PM)Petie Wrote: That's the purpose of this conversation though - to find an acceptable middle ground.

Yes, talking about a problem is always a good method of solving it.

I think we're actually on the same page but going about showing that in very different ways. I'm exaggerating to make my point at times ("one or two people" and "slightly distasteful" - there is obviously the potential to have many people offended and some of the images, like the one you just linked, are definitely more than pixelated frontal nudity from the 80s) but I'm also trying to think practically. The site has been operational for a long time and I can count on one hand the number of times people have taken issue with NSFW content here. One of those times was a teacher who said they regularly used the site and asked for some way to hide the NSFW sheets which is where the current message and click-through process came from. So I'm not so much focusing on what you're literally saying but pointing out that many of the suggested implementations of this filter negatively impact the user experience which isn't worth it when a comparatively small percentage of people will prefer it after the change.

I'm not against hiding the icons for NSFW sheets but the rule is already in place that the icons, regardless of what they're representing, are supposed to be appropriate regardless. For instance, the icon for the sheet you linked is not what I'd call inappropriate:



Sure, when looked at in the context of the full image, it becomes inappropriate but on its own, it's not. That said, if we were to implement either one or the other (hiding the icons entirely or just swapping the image), swapping the image out is infinitely easier and far less intrusive. It's not difficult to hide the content but then we have cases where some of the site is inaccessible and I'm not a fan of that approach. Swapping the icons would be simple and can be done with no significant changes to the code (e.g. having to point out where and how many sheets have been removed from the current view). Like I said, I'm not against it but I haven't been convinced that it's entirely necessary given our current icon guidelines.

One other thing to keep in mind here though is that the mention of covering ourselves (presumably legally) keeps coming up and I'd like to point out that what we're doing isn't illegal and the method we have of hiding inappropriate content already protects us given that you have to willingly acknowledge a warning (which was a little vague in hindsight, hence the update today) and manually click through it to access that content.

I think as an immediate way to avoid issues, we should remove NSFW content from the front page and recent updates. I think it's fair to say that these can cause issue with my morality on accepting certain items due to the exposure it can have to an unsuspecting audience.

Cookie filter sounds like our best bet. Perhaps a toggle of some sort on a side bar which simply reads "display NSFW content: yes/no". I think that we could fit this in the header, or the sidebar. All of these concerns of user accounts isn't worth the hassle it brings to every Big Timmy who is using the site as a gallery of sorts.

Again, subjective morality is the issue. I find it difficult maintaining a database of images from games while encouraging people to do so and pushing away content that I don't deem fit from a personal point of view. It's always been an issue and will continue to be - but if we have safer means of browsing the site, my view on accepting these things will definitely open slightly.

Okay, so after what turned out to be a much more difficult implementation (to do right, anyway), NSFW sheets are now hidden from the recently uploaded section of the home page as well as in the update content itself. This is not toggle-able but only applies to browsing the actual home page. A note is left to show how many NSFW sheets were hidden and they are still visible if you click to view the whole update (as well as elsewhere on the site).

I hope this is an acceptable start to addressing these concerns.

Edit:
Thinking about it, I guess once the cookie-based toggle is implemented, it should (and will) also toggle the home page (with the default state being hidden) as well so I'll update that code once it's ready. Doing the full-site toggle is definitely going to be much harder to implement though as there are a ton of places where sheets are linked from (some of the less obvious ones are the comments list and submitter profiles).

Should there be a banned game list regarding NSFW content? Because I think this game might cause a problem: [LINK]
Pedophilia and incest from the looks of it. (Hentai games involving any fucked up fetishes would raise even further controversy)

incest is ok in fiction, imho.
as for pedophilia... Loli and petite are a thing, i don't know honestly

Puggsoy explained to me on the Discord about it. If it gets too graphic, it's not going to be accepted. (Something like that)

The portraits are okay, but I'm not ripping the sex animations. Reasons:

1. Shota content (Dazz ripped loli content before, but it wasn't as explicit as this).
2. The quality of the animations is not as high as for the portraits (at least the majority isn't).
3. Way too many animations, probably over 1GB in size. It would take too much time to organize/upload.