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.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

The update is that we're working on it, and due to the time of year and other demands on the time of the volunteers who make up the moderating team, that discussion is not a quick process. We are discussing policy and site rules changes, and these will be implemented once the kinks are worked out.

So, it's been another 3 weeks, any update on changes to rules regarding rape fantasy models/nudity models in general/models based on real people?

I'm not convinced harassing the mods is a great strategy.

I don't think posting once every three weeks comes anywhere near "harassment." If it does, everyone is harassing everyone else nearly on a daily basis.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

The update is that we're working on it, and due to the time of year and other demands on the time of the volunteers who make up the moderating team, that discussion is not a quick process. We are discussing policy and site rules changes, and these will be implemented once the kinks are worked out.

So, it's been another 3 weeks, any update on changes to rules regarding rape fantasy models/nudity models in general/models based on real people?

I'm not convinced harassing the mods is a great strategy.

I'm not convinced he is harassing the mods - and given we're now in February, you'd hope the "seasonal disruption" had died down enough to allow for some form of progress on the issue, one way or another.

Okay, thanks for bearing with us. Changing the rules of the forum is not as easy a job as flicking a switch, it involves a lot of thought and discussion on what is best for the site and our user base and that takes time. We still have a few things to work through around disciplinary measures, the automated warning system and an incentive scheme for positive posting habits and they will be rolled out when we have finished grinding out the details.

However we can announce a change to the sites rules around gratuitous nudity and explicit sexual content, to whit the rules will be updated to read the following;

It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, explicit sexual references, etc, are strictly forbidden, including all images that are posted on or uploaded to our site. Miniature and wargaming-related images including nudity are allowed within certain limits:
- NSFW images shared on the forum must be in Spoiler tags
- NSFW images uploaded to the Dakka Gallery must be tagged as 'NSFW'
- Images containing gratuitous nudity and explicit sexual content, slavery or abuse should not be shared on the forum or uploaded to the Gallery.
- If you see something you think might be inappropriate, please use the Mod Alert button to bring it to our attention. Images thus reported will be assessed and/or removed at the discretion of the Moderation team.

As such, several threads have been retired from the forums and their owners contacted.

If you have any questions please post them here or PM a mod.

Many thanks for your patience and happy wargaming,

Regards,
ingtær on behalf of the Modquisition.

 ingtaer wrote:
As such, several threads have been retired from the forums and their owners contacted.

Could we please have a list of threads that have been retired? I ask this because it would be useful to know what threads are gone in case you were waiting for updates or new releases from said threads. No good waiting for a thread that doesn't exist any more.


Furthermore, has Brother Vinni's presence been purged from the site completely, or is he allowed to make a new thread for non-sexually explicit stuff (of which he has quite a lot)?

Deleted Manufaktura's thread?

Manufaktura and Vinni's threads are the only two from N&R so far.

And yes, Vinni's SFW is allowed to be posted here.

Well, that's disappointing. It's a shame to see another forum roll over faster than dog wanting belly rubs in the face of a minority of users who need to wake up

 Rolsheen wrote:
Well, that's disappointing. It's a shame to see another forum roll over faster than dog wanting belly rubs in the face of a minority of users who need to wake up

You're kidding right? Dakka literally let it fly for at least a decade, but now that they're taking even the most basic stance of "don't support or allow rape content or content that degrades people based on their gender" you're up in arms?

 ingtaer wrote:

- Images containing gratuitous nudity and explicit sexual content, slavery or abuse should not be shared on the forum or uploaded to the Gallery.

Also, it might just be a word thing, but I think this should be "shall not" instead of "should not.." Should not implies "please don't do it," shall not implies "you will not do it."

 Rolsheen wrote:
Well, that's disappointing. It's a shame to see another forum roll over faster than dog wanting belly rubs in the face of a minority of users who need to wake up

WAKE UP SHEEPLE WE NEED RAPE FETISH PORN ON A FAMILY-FRIENDLY FORUM OR YOUR A DOG!!!!!

This is a forum that feels it necessary to have a swear filter. If someone can’t post “donkey-cave” because Please Think Of The Children, then I find it kind of weird to let them post “That’s totally consensual based on context not present in the image, I swear” fetish images. Granted, we allow Kingdom Death stuff, which is all that and more, but that’s for a game, clearly labeled, not a silent endorsement, and closer to Maplethorpe style art rather than Hustler style titillation.

(I’m honestly surprised they deleted those threads instead of moving them to a new DCM-like sub forum with an age restriction.)

Sometimes swear filters aren't just "about the children" but about helping to achieve a certain level of discourse and style of posting.

Ergo one that doesn't have people slinging swearwords at each other every other post in insults and such.

It's the same reason many places that have no children at all will have social rules or stigma that make it impolite or such to swear. Most of us I'd wager wouldn't go to a restaurant or a library and spend the day swearing.

Keeping Dakka safe for children was the explicit reason given for the swear filter.

Weird how that is totally at odds with allowing NSFW at all then.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
Well, that's disappointing. It's a shame to see another forum roll over faster than dog wanting belly rubs in the face of a minority of users who need to wake up

You're kidding right? Dakka literally let it fly for at least a decade, but now that they're taking even the most basic stance of "don't support or allow rape content or content that degrades people based on their gender" you're up in arms?

No, it really was a really vocal minority that got them shut down. And Manufaktura did start offering models of both sexes.

I still think this was an overreaction.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I still think this was an overreaction.

Could you clarify how it's an overreaction to ban rape fetish models (which aren't even very good sculpts) on a family-friendly forum with an extremely strict anti-profanity filter?

I'd say the issue is more there was an under-reaction at the time, rather than an overreaction now.

I might suggest that a locked, stickied post in N&R could be an idea, so there's clear visibility of this change in the rules?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I still think this was an overreaction.

Could you clarify how it's an overreaction to ban rape fetish models (which aren't even very good sculpts) on a family-friendly forum with an extremely strict anti-profanity filter?

For starters, you ARE aware that bondage does not equal rape, right?

As I've stated, I'm no fan of Vinni's work, but the vast majority of it isn't something I would ban. Yes, if he's depicting actual acts of a graphic nature or minis that look to be based on real people, I'd draw the line at those. But in general, I'm far less concerned about naked bits than I am about graphic violence - I still don't understand why people think it's okay to let their 10-year-old play Call of Duty, but so help you if the game has any bad words in it. In short, I think a lot of people's priorities are misplaced.

From a conversation I once had with a customer wanting to buy Grand Theft Auto for their kid:

Me: Are you sure you're okay with this game? It's got strong violence, strong sexual content, strong language...
Customer: Language? I'll just make him turn down the volume.
Me: ...that won't stop him from beating a hooker to death...

So, yes, I think this is an over-reaction. There's clearly a market for naked lady vikings - again, not my cup of tea - and prisoners in various states of undress/bondage, and I wouldn't be afraid of a few nipples.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I still think this was an overreaction.

Could you clarify how it's an overreaction to ban rape fetish models (which aren't even very good sculpts) on a family-friendly forum with an extremely strict anti-profanity filter?

For starters, you ARE aware that bondage does not equal rape, right?

When the label is literally "Ukranian slavegirl" your argument falls flat. I don't think anyone has a problem with nudity, it's the rape fantasy/sexual violence that people have a problem with.

I feel like the issue here is Manufactura getting wiped out in the crossfire. Vinni’s stuff, using a real person he has a real beef with in a model depicting sexual violence, is a pretty clear crossed line. Manufactura is as ostensibly selling BDSM-themed miniatures displaying ostensibly consensual situations. Not nearly as cut and dried.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I feel like the issue here is Manufactura getting wiped out in the crossfire. Vinni’s stuff, using a real person he has a real beef with in a model depicting sexual violence, is a pretty clear crossed line. Manufactura is as ostensibly selling BDSM-themed miniatures displaying ostensibly consensual situations. Not nearly as cut and dried.

OTOH does BDSM fetish stuff really belong on a forum where you can't say "donkey-cave" because think of the children?

That was the point I made earlier, yes.

Personally, I’d not bother with the swear filter and would keep well-labeled NSFW threads, maybe with links instead of inline pics, but I don’t run the site and don’t have any idea how many actual minors visit here. And I’d not allow anything depicting no consensual acts or real world people as victims.

Dakka chose the more family-friendly route, though.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

OTOH does BDSM fetish stuff really belong on a forum where you can't say "donkey-cave" because think of the children?

To be clear, 'think of the children' is a gross simplification of the reason for keeping the site family-friendly. It's a standard that is intended to also keep the site accessible to those checking in from work or other potentially public places, and also just to keep things at the same sort of standard you would expect in most public social gatherings.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I still think this was an overreaction.

Could you clarify how it's an overreaction to ban rape fetish models (which aren't even very good sculpts) on a family-friendly forum with an extremely strict anti-profanity filter?

For starters, you ARE aware that bondage does not equal rape, right?

When the label is literally "Ukranian slavegirl" your argument falls flat. I don't think anyone has a problem with nudity, it's the rape fantasy/sexual violence that people have a problem with.

If you had bothered to quote my whole post, you'd have quoted where I said:

Manfred von Drakken wrote:Yes, if he's depicting actual acts of a graphic nature or minis that look to be based on real people, I'd draw the line at those.

Even GW was selling slave girls for a long time. Or are we supposed to be outraged over ANY model that's depicted as a slave, sexually or otherwise? Where do we draw the line? Skavenslaves? Slave Leia? Conan? Russell Crowe? Audioslave?

And yes, I'm being intentionally hyperbolic to make a point.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Even GW was selling slave girls for a long time. Or are we supposed to be outraged over ANY model that's depicted as a slave, sexually or otherwise? Where do we draw the line? Skavenslaves? Slave Leia? Conan? Russell Crowe? Audioslave?

And yes, I'm being intentionally hyperbolic to make a point.

Have you ever considered why GW stopped selling those models? Also, slave Leia is problematic too considering she's in a super revealing outfit, kept on a leash by a crime lord, in a place where a bunch of other slaves are dancing provocatively in similar outfits, so I don't think you thought that through. At all. Even a little bit. Like, not even for a second when you choose that as an example. As for skavenslaves/Conan/etc, they're not the same. It's comparing apples to oranges. I don't think there's any inherent sexualness to the nature of those. As in, that's not their primary draw. Most people aren't picking up a box of skavenslaves and getting titillated over them.

That said, I can see how Conan could be considered the male equivalent of slave Leia except that (AFIAK) Conan was not being sexualized by his captors (correct me if I'm wrong, I have no interest in Conan so I know very little about it). And that's a big difference. Conan is instead taught to fight (among a bunch of other things) and Leia is kept as like, a pet. Conan becomes empowered, Leia is disempowered until right at the end of that part of the movie when she kills Jabba. So I don't think that's really a good comparison.

So, whatever your point is, I don't think you thought it through. I think you're just trying to reach out blindly to justify... something. To me, it comes off like you think everyone is against BDSM, or nudity, or sexuality which isn't the case. Just rape fantasy in this case.

 Wolfblade wrote:
Have you ever considered why GW stopped selling those models?

Looking at GW's track record, I'd say it had far more to do with financial and/or production issues than any sense of principle.

I think part of the problem is that we have different ideas of what equates to rape fantasy.

In the specific case of the 'Ukrainian Slave Girl', I think we're agreed that crossed a line; partly due to the timing of the subject matter and partly due to it being based on a real person.

In the case of, say, Manufaktura, I don't see rape fantasy. I see a lot of bondage and humiliation, but nothing they've produced has offended any of my sensibilities.

...thinking a bit more, I'm wondering if it's just that I'm okay with rape fantasy, as long as it stops at fantasy.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Have you ever considered why GW stopped selling those models?

Looking at GW's track record, I'd say it had far more to do with financial and/or production issues than any sense of principle.

I think part of the problem is that we have different ideas of what equates to rape fantasy.

In the specific case of the 'Ukrainian Slave Girl', I think we're agreed that crossed a line; partly due to the timing of the subject matter and partly due to it being based on a real person.

In the case of, say, Manufaktura, I don't see rape fantasy. I see a lot of bondage and humiliation, but nothing they've produced has offended any of my sensibilities.

...thinking a bit more, I'm wondering if it's just that I'm okay with rape fantasy, as long as it stops at fantasy.

I don't know enough about Manufaktura, and I'm not condemning or supporting them for the record. The difference with Vinni's work is that they're all very clearly slaves or unwilling. A lot of them were labeled as stuff like "X in peril" or "X slavegirl." But like I said, I don't know very much about Manufaktura and am not judging it because of that. As for GW, It might be due to production issues, or it might have been the gradual shift of the company (I mean, look at their recent public statements regarding inclusivity). I have no doubt at least some of that is PR speak, but there's clearly some drive at the company to not tolerate stuff like that.

As for rape fantasy, what I mean is when the fantasy includes at least one party that is unwilling or unconsenting. Consensual rape fantasy (as in, roleplaying by both parties) is a different matter I think.

 insaniak wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

OTOH does BDSM fetish stuff really belong on a forum where you can't say "donkey-cave" because think of the children?

To be clear, 'think of the children' is a gross simplification of the reason for keeping the site family-friendly. It's a standard that is intended to also keep the site accessible to those checking in from work or other potentially public places, and also just to keep things at the same sort of standard you would expect in most public social gatherings.

So, since the other thread is locked without an answer, is it ok to post NSFW links or links to otherwise prohibited content (at least, AFAIK) such as rape fantasy models based on real people? Edit: I do see that vinni's thread was locked, however. Still, the question stands I suppose as the new rules are not published yet.

I think for now, let the mods look at where best to move on from here.
These things take time, and they do work hard.

Apple fox wrote:
I think for now, let the mods look at where best to move on from here.
These things take time, and they do work hard.

It's been something like a month and a half since the "real" start of this discussion, and about 8 days since the rules were "finalized" it seems, but they have not been updated anywhere I could easily find (except for here, in this thread). If the rules are ready to go, it doesn't take that much effort to swap out one portion of text for another.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
I think for now, let the mods look at where best to move on from here.
These things take time, and they do work hard.

It's been something like a month and a half since the "real" start of this discussion, and about 8 days since the rules were "finalized" it seems, but they have not been updated anywhere I could easily find (except for here, in this thread). If the rules are ready to go, it doesn't take that much effort to swap out one portion of text for another.

I don't see how any of this is a 'rules problem' situation. How hard is it to say 'We do not want this specific sick s**t on this forum, don't come back before you removed it'? The rules can be cleared up at the moderations convenience later on, just remove the freaking rape-endorsing gross stuff and its owner for the time being. I feel like i'm taking crazypills here, the double standards are so thick you can cut them with a knife. Nothing about this makes penning the perfect set of rules right now necessary like, at all, because this stuff is way way way over any line any reasonable rule would draw. This is not about a cheeky tit here or there or a risque political satire, it's about unmitigated, spiteful, mean-spirited dreck.