Risque Images and Writing on the Forums

[Holynexus]

Any imagery that discriminates anyone based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, and any other form of intolerance.

Because anything can be insulting to some people. Even ponies, or orcs.

This should solve a lot of cases of "insulting". Because we certainly don't want a man publicly ashaming a woman in a signature, while there is no actual problem with, I don't know, a black man in a tuxedo (which, to some people, is insulting and going against the values of good America and family and Christ...no, no, I'm serious. A fringe French politician recently pulled that one.)
Again, common sense should really be everything, but it's just so easy to hate and claim it's "insulting"..insulting to be gay, insulting to be a woman in a leading position (eg a Rosie), insulting to be black and love a white person, insulting to follow that faith and not that other one....the ways to lawful-evil your way around a vague rule are sadly enough endless, and codified rules often bring out people willing to break them.

As said below (I'm a time lady) - " People sadly find offence where no offence is meant at times. "

I do not condone any of the examples. :S

[Psychyn]

Any imagery that can be insulting to other players.

I honestly.. find this too 'vague' myself. Is there any rewording possible?

If there is a different way to phrase this available, I'm willing to hear it.

I'm still struggling to find said line myself but ;

Any imagery that discriminates anyone based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, and any other form of intolerance.

That would help out I suppose. It's a hard sentence to be worded really. I'll give it more thought, but for now.. I has nothing.

As for ;

Loathe as I am to couch it this way, how about something like, "any imagery that could reasonably be expected to be insulting to other players"? It's vague again, but it still maintains that there is hopefully some standard by which decisions are being rendered. And any shady areas can be gauged on an individual basis by either Grakor or Kretol.

Then we get to the question "What is reasonable?" which as you said, is vague again but.. Hrm. I'd prefer the one Holy mentioned, although the note that "Cases may be reviewed on individual basis by either Grakor or Kretol" is always a good one to put in as well.

People sadly find offence where no offence is meant at times. (Not direct at anyone, that's just human nature it seems. Goes for me as well.)

[Grakor456]

Any imagery that discriminates anyone based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, and any other form of intolerance.

While workable, I'll also point out that this isn't entirely what that phrase was intended to cover. We've had to ask players to change avatars because they could be interpreted as attacks or insults against *specific players*, not just broad minority groups.

[Delta]

An issue like this is about compromise, at its heart. Wherever the bar is set, someone is probably going to find it too far or not enough.

One of my favourite rules happens to be the following:
"Don't be too annoying, and don't be too easily annoyed."

[Psychyn]

Any imagery that discriminates anyone based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, and any other form of intolerance.

While workable, I'll also point out that this isn't entirely what that phrase was intended to cover. We've had to ask players to change avatars because they could be interpreted as attacks or insults against *specific players*, not just broad minority groups.

Any imagery that discriminates anyone based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, and any other form of intolerance. Imagery that can be interpreted as an attack or insult against individuals, guilds, groups or anything not mentioned, are also prohibited. As with any case, the Admins reserve the right to allow or disallow any imagery and said decision is final.

.. Yeah, I'm not sure.

Edit ; Added a bit.

[Jonoth]

Fixed up the wording a bit...

"Any imagery that discriminates based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, and any other form of intolerance. Imagery that can be interpreted as a personal attack or insult against players, player characters, guilds, or groups related to the server are also prohibited."

Political affiliation was a big one that was missing, because I've seen politics lead to some pretty heated arguments, and while its always mentioned to steer clear from it, you can't mention that enough.

[Rigley]

Redacted.

[Holynexus]

Yes.. but there seems to be a lack of common reason, I do suppose it's always best to be as exhaustive as possible. Thanks for rewording my sentence

But yes...personally I prefer Rigley's sentence, but this is still going to lead to heated debate (is more likely) about what is within reason and what's not. :/

[Piroska]

There will initially be a lot of confusion as people try to determine what the hardline is. I think that, with time and examples, people will start to understand a little more what can and cannot be posted on the forums.

Fortunately, this doesn't prevent you artistic types from being creative. You can still make things and post them, they just need to be elsewhere. I am certain that there are individuals who would enjoy still seeing the art/writing, even if they have to visit another site to do so.

[Rigley]

Redacted.

[Psychyn]

Yes.. but there seems to be a lack of common reason

Anything 'common' is uncommon in a group as diverse as CotH. so 'common' reason or sense, can not exist for commonness indicates that something is widely known or frequent. Knowledge, is based on what has been taught, learned or experience through out life which is different for each and every single one of us.

There will initially be a lot of confusion as people try to determine what the hardline is. I think that, with time and examples, people will start to understand a little more what can and cannot be posted on the forums.

Which will stir up drama a lot because each time a Admin or GM steps in, it's something to become dramatic over. ^^ While I do believe it will eventually be learned, I'd like to think that with a more clearer rule (Such as Jonoth put up earlier) the confusion/GM or Admin interaction will be less.

"Any imagery that discriminates based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, and any other form of intolerance. Imagery that can be interpreted as a personal attack or insult against players, player characters, guilds, or groups related to the server are also prohibited."

Thanks for fixing my sentences there Jonoth. :P I got no idea how to.. Write something that I have no real solution for. Can't seem to entirely grasp it well enough to be able to describe it in it's essence. I'd still like to add a small note that Admins can over-rule any decision and make their own, despite it being a known thing. It'd be a good reminder that if a GM(or user group) says yes, and the Admin says 'no' that there's simply no point to be arguing.

But, the bottom part is just me I suppose. With that, I probably said all I can say so heh. Whatever works for you guys. ^^

[ImagenAshyun]

Personally I would find 'Any imagery which offends a player (within reason).'

A problem with that are the cultural boundaries of what is considered "reason" and offensive. In the Philippines, men will talk your ear out for hours using all the resources they have on why women should never initiate dates, why riding open-aired jeeps with no seat belts and holding young children in your arms are totally okay, and why it's absolutely wrong to have a gay man dress, act, and talk like a straight man. That particularly last one will offend an American, but a Filipino, by Filipino standards, is being reasonable in his own culture.

I prefer the more defined definition ("Any imagery that discriminates based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, faith..."") to be far more reasonably enforceable. It also forces individuals to consider that they're dealing with a gaming server that caters to all individuals, not just Americans.

[Rigley]

Redacted.

[Jonoth]

While I do understand the idea of a catch all, my main reason for agreeing with Immy (and for even further defining the rule) is that, whether people agree with it or not, it is concrete. It eliminates cultural norms and possible future complaints over favoritism if one person feels like their image/post was taken down, but another they view as similar enough is not. I'd rather see the GMs (and even the Admins) in game having fun and RPing than having to debate how far is too far in a piece of art or on a forum. Which is why I'd advocate a more concrete rule.

For art, perhaps we can use what we can see IG as the universal equalizer. For example, proportions no greater than what you can see on an in-game model, no greater skin exposure than what you can see on an in-game model, etc. Or even, if some of our community artists wouldn't mind, we can take a couple of samples of art here on the forum showing the limit of what is acceptable. If there is art that can already be considered as crossing the line, then certainly there has to be an example of one near it, but not going past it.

[Harmonic]

Can I be the first one to say that this is starting to scare the hell out of me? Even -discussing- the possibility of taking down anything that anyone could deem offensive makes me -very- nervous, mostly because I know that trying to censor yourself can be difficult, especially when you're not accustomed to being that way.

I can understand the "No big breats/giantsexualized organs", but this is going from that to a big, broad ballpark.

Edit: It's one of those things where I think even Krent's picture would be criticized -rediculously- heavy, even though it's supposed to be humorous.