Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In light of this thread (to make it clear I'm not complaining about it being posted)

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/707514.page

but it might be worth adding a request for posters to put NSFW images in spoilers with a brief description as to why (eg naked breasts) in the sticky 'please read this' post at the top of the N&R (and other) boards which we all read (honest guv)

that way at least some of the time people may be able to avoid stuff they might prefer not to see

it's not going to be perfect and everybody will have their own option about what is NSFW, but it should help a bit (and it would be simple to do and not involve any extra coding for Legoburner)

the issue is there are minors on this site and showing such pics (even of models) might cause issues, I say put links and let other sites deal with the issues.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
In light of this thread (to make it clear I'm not complaining about it being posted)

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/707514.page

but it might be worth adding a request for posters to put NSFW images in spoilers with a brief description as to why (eg naked breasts) in the sticky 'please read this' post at the top of the N&R (and other) boards which we all read (honest guv)

that way at least some of the time people may be able to avoid stuff they might prefer not to see

it's not going to be perfect and everybody will have their own option about what is NSFW, but it should help a bit (and it would be simple to do and not involve any extra coding for Legoburner)

Good suggestion. If it isn't already, this seems like something that should be added to the site rules, along with a definition of what is considered explicit (exposed genitals and breasts surely).

While on the topic, what about non-human nudity? Like monsters or even anatomically correct animals? Would a giant troll with an exposed penis be NSFW while a anatomically correct horse isn't? Does a penis = NSFW regardless of what it is attached to?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
along with a definition of what is considered explicit

I don't like the idea of nailing down what is explicit. IME these things are better handled on a case-by-case basis.

 Manchu wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
along with a definition of what is considered explicit

I don't like the idea of nailing down what is explicit. IME these things are better handled on a case-by-case basis.

While I understand to a degree, those sort of loose rules interpretations are what makes Dakka a frustrating place to post sometimes (for me, anyway). What one mod might consider over the line another wouldn't,. For such a sensitive topic as what constitutes explicit images, some agreed upon baseline is needed in my opinion.

But, its not my site so do what you will.

Here's my thought process: We know people don't read stickies so adding "please use NSFW tags for explicit images/topics where explicit means XYZ" to a sticky will not actually serve any prophylactic purpose. That means said definition would only ever be evoked retroactively - exactly like if a moderator had to look at it. So I prefer to let the mods do our jobs ("know it when we see it") rather than parse out a notoriously difficult bright line.

 Manchu wrote:
Here's my thought process: We know people don't read stickies so adding "please use NSFW tags for explicit images/topics where explicit means XYZ" to a sticky will not actually serve any prophylactic purpose. That means said definition would only ever be evoked retroactively - exactly like if a moderator had to look at it. So I prefer to let the mods do our jobs ("know it when we see it") rather than parse out a notoriously difficult bright line.

well i'm thinking exposed genitals would be on that list of explicit images, in fact i'm sure that is what was meant amongst other things when the rule was put in place, if not then what would explicit images be?

No, exposed genitals is not enough by itself to be "explicit":Or to use DarkTraveller777's apt example:Please note, I am only using spoiler tags because of the size of the images. These are not, in my judgment, explicit - nor do I feel that they absolutely must be filed under a NSFW tag, although it's no big deal if someone were to do so, either.

but then there in lies the issue and it should be addressed with the site owner, because what we term as not explicit could be construed as otherwise by the site owner, when the site owner made the rules we do not know what he meant since he/she did not bother to extrapolate on what said explicit images would entail, and by going by moderator decision, that could leave 2 people displaying the same image, one gets removed, the other does not, so we do not have cohesion in how the rules are enforced.

The site owners chose the moderators and trust us to deal with issues like this on a discretionary basis. We also talk to them and each other about these and many other issues - both of which actually happened in this particular case. The moderators tend to talk to each other quite a bit, behind the scenes. We don't always reach the same conclusions but I see that as a more of a benefit than a drawback; no one POV is correct 100% of the time. If we were talking about something more serious than posting on a forum about toy soldiers, I think we would really need to be a lot more rules-focused. But fortunately this is just a discussion website about a fun hobby and we therefore prefer a "rules lite" approach.

 Manchu wrote:
The site owners chose the moderators and trust us to deal with issues like this on a discretionary basis. We also talk to them and each other about these and many other issues - both of which actually happened in this particular case. The moderators tend to talk to each other quite a bit, behind the scenes. We don't always reach the same conclusions but I see that as a more of a benefit than a drawback; no one POV is correct 100% of the time. If we were talking about something more serious than posting on a forum about toy soldiers, I think we would really need to be a lot more rules-focused. But fortunately this is just a discussion website about a fun hobby and we therefore prefer a "rules lite" approach.

then what would be considered explicit? like the 3rd. image of said post I would consider sexually explicit, but what are the guidelines of what is explicit? we need to just post pics and leave it to the moderators to decide?

Whenever you post, you should always engage your own judgment first and foremost. If you think it's a corner case, feel free to PM a moderator before posting.

Doesn't dakka try to uphold a PG13 environment? Should help as a guideline of what should and shouldn't be posted. I'd guess nude models would be alright in spoilers with a disclaimer as they could be considered MA at most for example, but ones depicting enough to be considered R18+ should likely be a link with a disclaimer if even posted at all.

The system as it currently exists seems to be working quite well - there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to modify it or add any additional rules to the site.

 n0t_u wrote:
Doesn't dakka try to uphold a PG13 environment? Should help as a guideline of what should and shouldn't be posted. I'd guess nude models would be alright in spoilers with a disclaimer as they could be considered MA at most for example, but ones depicting enough to be considered R18+ should likely be a link with a disclaimer if even posted at all.

There is a pretty big difference between photos of nudity and figurines or statues that are nude.

I think the only thing that would be outright banned would be actual erotic pornography (be it live or animated) and any models that involve sexual acts. I don't even know if the latter exists.

The thread in question showed up on my Facebook feed today after it was posted by the DakkaDakka account, with the boobs being the featured picture.

Just FYI.

Yep we saw it and took it down. I think something similar happened with a NSFW image appearing on the front page.

 Manchu wrote:
Yep we saw it and took it down. I think something similar happened with a NSFW image appearing on the front page.

I noticed it earlier and I remember thinking that there was a discussion about it at some previous point. But then there were puppy pictures and I forgot all about it until I saw this thread.

Meow!

(Ha!)