We are still hacking out the rules between all the admins, but I wanted to go ahead and post about the two that are confusing the users the most right now: Porn and Idling.
Of course, the rules were always posted on the CR website, and the motd's/logonnews used to display the URL there. It was only removed when Therianthropy.Org switched hosts (I didn't realize Uath didn't upload the CR site, but he only uploaded the Forums). But we're going to redo the whole set of rules, so that's moot now.
The following information is for the Network as a whole, but certain channels will be mentioned specifically:
-Rule about Sex and Porn stuff:
Discussions about sex, even humorous, or vulgar discussions are okay, as long as acts, or depictions are not described, and that includes visually and verbally. Tasteful nudity is okay, anything meant to arouse is not. What we mean by "tasteful" is that the 'bits' or 'naughties' are shown/described but not the focus. Anything with sexually aroused parts (erect penis, any juices, acts thereof) or made to arouse the viewer is not okay. This also includes pictures and text descriptions.
The general rule of thumb that users are expected to go by is the following: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The Crossroads Network." We are trusting you to use your own good judgement here.
Users who violate this rule may be subject to administrative action as deemed appropriate by the administrators.
-Rules about Idling:
Our definition of Idling: People who are either AFK, or are not actively paying attention to IRC. People who are paying attention to IRC but not talking do not fall under the definition of "Idling".
However, in order to prove that you're not AFK or Idle, you may be asked to respond in a timely manner. Failure to do so may get you kicked.
Users who have on auto-rejoin may be temporarily banned just to keep clients from immediately reconnecting when kicked.
#therianthropy - 1 hour. You need to be paying attention to this channel. Active participation is requested.
#crossroads - 3 hours. If you need to run to town or something, you're okay. But don't make it excessive. We want people who join the channel to know that people who are there are generally active.
Serverside Idling: 6 hours. We know some people stay connected as like an IM thing, but you can use Memoserv for that as well. Don't make it excessive or leave your irc client up just because.
To Ops:You do not need to constantly watch idle times. If you see someone idling excessively, you're authorized to kick if they do not respond. If you kick a user for being idle, please include the idle time in the kick message.
-Channel Creation: There has never been a limit on user created channels. You can create a channel simply by joining it. It does not need to exist before you can join it. The rule confused with this is Channel Registration (On Chanserv). You need to talk to an Admin before you're allowed to register a channel. (We will have more information for this later). Again, we're trusting you to use your judgement on this. Joining a billion channels just because you can will get you /killed.
On Saturday 10 February 2007 04:52:30 pm Jakkal wrote:
> Discussions about sex, even humorous, or vulgar discussions are okay, > as long as acts, or depictions are not described, and that includes > visually and verbally. Tasteful nudity is okay, anything meant to > arouse is not. What we mean by "tasteful" is that the 'bits' or > 'naughties' are shown/described but not the focus. Anything with > sexually aroused parts (erect penis, any juices, acts thereof) or made > to arouse the viewer is not okay. This also includes pictures and > text descriptions.
What about things that aren't explicit in showing/describing "bits", but still arouse? What may arouse me may not arouse someone else, etc. What may be tasteful nudity to one person may be porn to another. If you take an image like this: http://www.furaffinity.net/full/404598/ ..one could argue it is designed to arouse, with the expressions and implied activity.. but the subjects are fully clothed and there's no "naughty" things going on. Or what if you have a very well drawn image of a naked female spread out on a grassy field. I even asked an admin once about such a picture and though they'd have erred on the side of caution and said its not allowed, they admitted they weren't really sure if it was tasteful nude or porn. Then there's the phenomenon of taking a tasteful nude of a female, replacing the subject with a male, and its all of a sudden seen as porn even though nothing else has changed.
When it comes to art, there's a very large gray area between tasteful and porn. If there's even a distinction at all.. why can't porn be tasteful?
What about euphemisms in chat? It's practically a tradition in #crossroads to take comments out of context and put them into the topic because they sound sexual, what about that?
> The general rule of thumb that users are expected to go by is the > following: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The > Crossroads Network." We are trusting you to use your own good > judgement here.
Some would consider discussions about sex being not safe for work. Same as heavy cussing, or tasteful nudity. IMO, violence and heavy swearing is more NSFW than explicit nudity, but someone else may not think so. Of course it also depends on where you work.
Technically, NSFW is usually meant for picture links. If you're at work, opening a picture that contains, say, an erect penis wouldn't really go well with management at all. Pictures of kittens are SFW. All this doesn't apply to text however. Usually, text is too small to read unless your boss is glued to your shoulder or something. But never mind all that.
I agree that tasteful nudity can be okay. You can speak up about it and say, 'oh, btw, this is really pretty. tasteful nudity ahead <link>'. As a rule of thumb, to judge what is tasteful and what is not, you have to ask yourself this question. 'How likely will somebody understand it as porn and feel offended by it?' Some people cover the eyes of their kids when they see the Venus de Milo. Others nod and scratch their chins, taking notes, while watching a 20-people-orgy. It depends on who you're going to show it to. Don't aim to offend. Don't aim to push the rules unless it has a really really good purpose (aka a damn good excuse). The difference between porn and tasteful nudity is in the eye of the beholder. This isn't to say that if there's the right people online, you can break out the full-on R-rated stuff. But you yourself should judge how the people in the chatroom are going to react. So think twice before your post something. And if in doubt, just don't post it. Simply put, avoid the trouble. As for what's going on in the topics, well, that's just how repressed some people are :P I personally prefer to clean the topic out. Especially if some announcements are getting replaced with nonsense.
On 2/10/07, Chris Robinson <chris.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 10 February 2007 04:52:30 pm Jakkal wrote: > > Discussions about sex, even humorous, or vulgar discussions are okay, > > as long as acts, or depictions are not described, and that includes > > visually and verbally. Tasteful nudity is okay, anything meant to > > arouse is not. What we mean by "tasteful" is that the 'bits' or > > 'naughties' are shown/described but not the focus. Anything with > > sexually aroused parts (erect penis, any juices, acts thereof) or made > > to arouse the viewer is not okay. This also includes pictures and > > text descriptions.
> What about things that aren't explicit in showing/describing "bits", but > still > arouse? What may arouse me may not arouse someone else, etc. What may be > tasteful nudity to one person may be porn to another. If you take an image > like this: > http://www.furaffinity.net/full/404598/ > ..one could argue it is designed to arouse, with the expressions and > implied > activity.. but the subjects are fully clothed and there's no "naughty" > things > going on. Or what if you have a very well drawn image of a naked female > spread out on a grassy field. I even asked an admin once about such a > picture > and though they'd have erred on the side of caution and said its not > allowed, > they admitted they weren't really sure if it was tasteful nude or porn. > Then > there's the phenomenon of taking a tasteful nude of a female, replacing > the > subject with a male, and its all of a sudden seen as porn even though > nothing > else has changed.
> When it comes to art, there's a very large gray area between tasteful and > porn. If there's even a distinction at all.. why can't porn be tasteful?
> What about euphemisms in chat? It's practically a tradition in #crossroads > to > take comments out of context and put them into the topic because they > sound > sexual, what about that?
> > The general rule of thumb that users are expected to go by is the > > following: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The > > Crossroads Network." We are trusting you to use your own good > > judgement here.
> Some would consider discussions about sex being not safe for work. Same as > heavy cussing, or tasteful nudity. IMO, violence and heavy swearing is > more > NSFW than explicit nudity, but someone else may not think so. Of course it > also depends on where you work.
At this point i think we are not only hammering out the rules but the way they are written as well. When it comes to rules i want things to be written as clearly as possible. I love the first part of the rule dealing with explicit material. I think Jakkal did an excellent job on that one. They are fair and not too restrictive (to me anyway).
The second part about the NSFW i don't like. It contradicts the first part. I don't know of *any* non-erotica oriented work places where nudes would be OK to display. Even in a mechanics office the line is drawn at bikinis. I think this paragraph just adds to the confusion of things. To someone that was not familiar with the network, this second paragraph just adds needless confusion.
I think you guys are missing the forest for the trees here. What Chris and BC tell me is that our rules aren't restrictive /enough/ and I thought you guys wanted us NOT to make uber restrictive rules.
We CANNOT make rules for EVERY LITTLE TINY SITUATION that comes up. That's why we said we're trusting YOU to use YOUR BEST JUDGEMENT. If you are incapable of that much, then somehow I doubt you'll be able to participate on the Crossroads Network.
The "First Part" is the rule. Period. That's the way we've set it and that's what we're sticking to. We knew people, such as Chris has demonstrated, would either not be able to figure it out, or would try to nitpick the fine details and such ignore the rule in the process because it's apparently not specific enough.
The "Rule of Thumb" is not /the rule/, it's a /rule of thumb/. I thought that was a clear expressive term at this point, and I thought all the people of Crossroads would be able to understand that without me whipping out the super undiabably specific Lawyereese (Which I know you wouldn't understand).
A "Rule of Thumb" is not the definitive rule, it's a general guideline on how to proceed with something if you're unsure about it. For most of what Chris posted, his entire post could have been avoided if he used the Rule Of Thumb method of determination. "Well I'm unsure about this picture, how should I go about posting it? Is it safe for work? Yes? Okay I'll post it." "Is it safe for work? No? I guess I shouldn't post it."
Now I know I've told you guys in the past that one thing that really drives me up the wall is stupid, nonsensitical, pointless nitpickery. Don't do that here.
"What Chris and BC tell me is that our rules aren't restrictive / enough/ and I thought you guys wanted us NOT to make uber restrictive rules. "
No. What i'm expressing is that NSFW does *not* generally mean that you can display nudity, curse, and talk about things like therianthropy around the water cooler. I suppose i am taking NSFW to mean literally innapropreate for most work environments.
Again, the rule is fine. I loved it when i first saw it. I will follow it. I will help others follow it. Let it stay the way it is. Yay! However, I feel the second part does not encompass it and will be confusing to some people whom are not familiar with the network. Big deal. That's all i was saying. I am willing to explain it to anyone who is confused.
(As a side note, i would understand lawyereese and would prefer it, but i do not expect others to use it or do the work to get our rules to that state). <-----I am now done with the above, but if you wanna discuss it further that's cool.----------->
As far as not making a rule for every little situation i do understand why people want that. Chris *is* being nitpicky here. Perhaps a little bit too much, but i do understand where he is coming from. The porn rule was not enforced at all for years and then *WHAM* the hammer comes down and people don't even know what happened, just that a bomb went off. Then it posted that total bans would be INSTANT and without question. This networks is very important to some people, including myself and a permanent ban would be a huge loss. *That* is what created this need for nitpickery. When faced with that threat, of course some people are going to want to know *exactly* what they should and should not do and some people are gonna be to scared to touch it at all.
"Now I know I've told you guys in the past that one thing that really drives me up the wall is stupid, nonsensitical, pointless nitpickery. Don't do that here."
I don't understand why you feel the need to be insulting here, but then again you and I have gone 'round about that before. This time though it is directed at me. If you ask me for me opinion i'm going to give it to you regardless how "stupid" or "pointless" you think it may be. The idea that it is "stupid" or "pointless" is *your* opinion, be that as it may and i will not second guess what you may think is an intelligent comment at any given moment to save your eyes from it. I don't what the point would be of asking for opinions and then being unwilling to go into the details.
I'd be glad to talk about all this here, in chat or one on one. I don't have internet access at my house right now (i am staying late and typing this up at work) but i should have access later if the snow lets up and the lines get repaired.
I do respect your opinion and i look forward to working this out with you.
What i said above still stand for me (what 5 minutes later with some calming down?), but i can understand your frustration at trying to get the rules worked out Jakkal. This must be like herding cats (and i know how difficult i'd be to herd). Thank you for doing so and including us in the process. I realize that you wouldn't have to.
Also, please remember folks that if people have a question on what is apporpreate they can ask an admin an know that their ass is covered provided that they follow the admins ruling. The rules don't have to be exact if people know they can ask for clarifications and feel safe doing so.
MoonWind
On Feb 12, 5:55 pm, "Bearcat" <therianthr...@feline-soul.com> wrote:
> "What Chris and BC tell me is that our rules aren't restrictive / > enough/ and > I thought you guys wanted us NOT to make uber restrictive rules. "
> No. What i'm expressing is that NSFW does *not* generally mean that > you can display nudity, curse, and talk about things like > therianthropy around the water cooler. I suppose i am taking NSFW to > mean literally innapropreate for most work environments.
> Again, the rule is fine. I loved it when i first saw it. I will follow > it. I will help others follow it. Let it stay the way it is. Yay! > However, I feel the second part does not encompass it and will be > confusing to some people whom are not familiar with the network. Big > deal. That's all i was saying. I am willing to explain it to anyone > who is confused.
> (As a side note, i would understand lawyereese and would prefer it, > but i do not expect others to use it or do the work to get our rules > to that state). > <-----I am now done with the above, but if you wanna discuss it > further that's cool.----------->
> As far as not making a rule for every little situation i do understand > why people want that. Chris *is* being nitpicky here. Perhaps a little > bit too much, but i do understand where he is coming from. The porn > rule was not enforced at all for years and then *WHAM* the hammer > comes down and people don't even know what happened, just that a bomb > went off. Then it posted that total bans would be INSTANT and without > question. This networks is very important to some people, including > myself and a permanent ban would be a huge loss. *That* is what > created this need for nitpickery. When faced with that threat, of > course some people are going to want to know *exactly* what they > should and should not do and some people are gonna be to scared to > touch it at all.
> "Now I know I've told you guys in the past that one thing that really > drives me up the wall is stupid, nonsensitical, pointless nitpickery. > Don't do that here."
> I don't understand why you feel the need to be insulting here, but > then again you and I have gone 'round about that before. This time > though it is directed at me. If you ask me for me opinion i'm going to > give it to you regardless how "stupid" or "pointless" you think it may > be. The idea that it is "stupid" or "pointless" is *your* opinion, be > that as it may and i will not second guess what you may think is an > intelligent comment at any given moment to save your eyes from it. I > don't what the point would be of asking for opinions and then being > unwilling to go into the details.
> I'd be glad to talk about all this here, in chat or one on one. I > don't have internet access at my house right now (i am staying late > and typing this up at work) but i should have access later if the snow > lets up and the lines get repaired.
> I do respect your opinion and i look forward to working this out with > you.
Again, the first part of the rule is fine. The second paragraph can be explained by an admin when an unsure user asks said amin may i post such-and-such-link. If there isn't an admin around and you are unsure, don't post it on the network.
I hate triple posting, but as this is sent out as email there is no editing of course. (and i think my last attempt at posting this failed)
I read over all of these posts again. Reading over the second paragraph of the rules again i realized that i'm getting hung up on the words "Rule of thumb." I'm not sure if they are being used correctly here or not, as the definitions i can find pertain to estimation of measurements in inches. I was reading it as "In summary of the above paragraph do not post links that are not safe for work." Obviously (to me anyway), not safe for work is not a summary of the above rules and why would a summary be warranted anyway?
If i ignore that phrase and how i was interpreting it, i take you to mean that "If you are unsure as to whether a link is deemed inappropriate by the preceding rule and an admin is not there to instruct you (or won't look at possibly icky stuff :P ) do not post the link if you would not be comfortable publicly displaying it's contents in your average place of business." If that's what it means then awesome. Great. I love the new rules.
> If i ignore that phrase and how i was interpreting it, i take you to > mean that "If you are unsure as to whether a link is deemed > inappropriate by the preceding rule and an admin is not there to > instruct you (or won't look at possibly icky stuff :P ) do not post > the link if you would not be comfortable publicly displaying it's > contents in your average place of business." If that's what it means > then awesome. Great. I love the new rules.
Yes, that's what it means. But since it took people to get to this point, we need to take out "We're trusting you to use your best judgement." If anything I've learned that I cannot trust anyone's "best judgement".
I'm trying to reconstruct my comment, because apparantly reply to author is email only. I am also taking the liberty of putting down Jakkals reply.
1."Discussions about sex, even humorous, or vulgar discussions are okay, as long as acts, or depictions are not described, and that includes visually and verbally. Tasteful nudity is okay, anything meant to arouse is not. What we mean by "tasteful" is that the 'bits' or 'naughties' are shown/described but not the focus. Anything with sexually aroused parts (erect penis, any juices, acts thereof) or made to arouse the viewer is not okay. This also includes pictures and text descriptions. "
2a."The general rule of thumb that users are expected to go by is the following: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The Crossroads Network." We are trusting you to use your own good judgement here."
Tasteful nudity is generally not safe for work , therefore, as a rule of thumb, "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The Crossroads Network." is not really applicable and should either be removed or edited. 2b, if used, would exclude all nudity, profanity, and even downright educational discussions about taboo topics. It's a poor rule of thumb, period, I cannot stress that more. The sentiment that one is expected to use ones own judgement is probably good enough. Although as an example of nitpicking, I would say that I think it is really a meaningless statement, as you are essentially asking them to use your own judgement, and not theirs. Good and judgement have relative, egoist values.
Part of Chris' argument directly relates to this. It is *very difficult* to create a rule of thumb on this topic because the words pornography, tasteful, and arousing are value laden and subject to the individuals interpretation. Rule 34 of the internet "If it exists, there is porn of it" is a perfect example. Expectoration fetishes, people who "get off" to sneezing, etc, etc. But honestly, I'm not sure why we need a rule of thumb, because 1. is *very* clear about what is acceptable (except for the "meant to arouse" part, see Rule 34. I might suggest removing it as well. It is superfluous and stated twice, redundant.)
Call it what you may Jakkal, but our "nitpicking" may just be in your best interests. And in the end, the proposed solution won't break your back.
Tasteful nudity is generally not safe for work , therefore, as a rule of thumb, "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The Crossroads Network." is not really applicable and should either be removed or edited.
The rule of thumb is nothing more than a way to figure out if you should post something or not, because we knew people wouldn't have different interpretations of the rule, no matter how we word it. Why? Because we're trying to be open with it, we're TRYING to make it open to interpretation so people don't have to worry about every little thing. If you're afraid a picture might be crossing the line, you use the rule of thumb. That's why we said, "tasteful nudity is okay" but as others have pointed out, they might think an erect penis is 'tasteful'. So use the rule of thumb if you really can't figure it out. That's why it's there.
2b, if used, would exclude all nudity, profanity, and even downright educational discussions about taboo topics. It's a poor rule of thumb, period, I cannot stress that more.
I disagree. There's no other way to word it to make people understand without showing us every single picture for fear that they might be banned. That's why I said we're leaving it up to their best judgement. You're missing the forest for the trees for a "rule of thumb" that would help people figure out if they should post something or not.
The sentiment that one is expected to use ones own judgement is probably good enough.
But as others have said, they think porn is "tasteful". They think "any anthro is arousing". They simple /do not know/ where the line is. That's why the rule of thumb exists as a simple catch-all if people can't understand the rule (which they obviously do not).
Although as an example of nitpicking, I would say that I think it is really a meaningless statement, as you are essentially asking them to use your own judgement, and not theirs. Good and judgement have relative, egoist values.
And that is *exactly* what the rule of thumb is for. Thank you for making my point crystal clear.
Part of Chris' argument directly relates to this. It is *very difficult* to create a rule of thumb on this topic because the words pornography, tasteful, and arousing are value laden and subject to the individuals interpretation.
But the rule of thumb covers that. If you can't figure it out, then if it's not safe for work, you probably shouldn't post it. I don't see how that's anything but clear. True, that covers "tasteful nudity" like Michaelangelo's David. So then the solution is simple, don't post a picture of Michaelangelo's David.
Rule 34 of the internet "If it exists, there is porn of it" is a perfect example. Expectoration fetishes, people who "get off" to sneezing, etc, etc. But honestly, I'm not sure why we need a rule of thumb, because 1. is *very* clear about what is acceptable (except for the "meant to arouse" part, see Rule 34. I might suggest removing it as well. It is superfluous and stated twice, redundant.)
Nitpickery.
Call it what you may Jakkal, but our "nitpicking" may just be in your best interests. And in the end, the proposed solution won't break your back.
No, what's in our best interests are solutions to the problems, not nitpicking the rules because one doesn't like them. If you'd like to take a stab at rewording it so people will stop missing the forest for the trees, then feel free. That would be helpful. Right now, no one is doing anything other than telling us they can't figure out the rule.
"But the rule of thumb covers that. If you can't figure it out, then if it's not safe for work, you probably shouldn't post it. "
See now when you add "If you can't figure it out" that puts the whole thing together. It makes sense. That's not what's going on in the statement you provided. And I think a lot of silly bickering could have been prevented if that phrase (or a softer variant) had been used.
"If you'd like to take a stab at rewording it so people will stop missing the forest for the trees, then feel free."
Actually, that's what I was trying to suggest. In fact: If text or content you want to share does not apply to the above rules, then use the more cautious rule: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The Crossroads Network." If it would get you fired, don't send it. You can share questionable material in plenty other places.
is my suggestion to replace: "The general rule of thumb that users are expected to go by is the following: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The Crossroads Network." We are trusting you to use your own good judgement here. "
My version adds the "if" telling users that the rule of thumb follows after the previous rule fails. it turns the "rule of thumb" into a rule, because it has a stronger meaning, and I added a suggestion for alternative behavior to seeking to post that content here.
"Right now, no one is doing anything other than telling us they can't figure out the rule."
Really there is no reason to be rude here. So far you've dismissed *everyone* in this thread that has asked you to clarify the rules, as being nitpicky. But it seems like you haven't been paying attention to their complaints. The two "rules" (which I previously attributed numbers to) contradict. You couldn't see that because you were inferring extra information that the rest of us did not have. Your rule of thumb is merely a substitute, but that's not explicitly clear in the rules you've shared with us. Even after you explained to Bearcat that the rule of thumb is a cover-all replacement, you still don't seem to understand that when reading it, the rest uf us aren't seeing that being made clear.
"Really there is no reason to be rude here. So far you've dismissed *everyone* in this thread that has asked you to clarify the rules, as being nitpicky."
I think i can clear up some of this, at least as pertains to myself. I may be wrong, but i think i figured out what happened here. Part of the problem is that Jakkal's response to me is based on a post which i sent to the Admin list which the rest of you don't see and is outdated. Here's the time line:
1) On the 1/8/2007 Bowtie posted the following as the MOTD: "ATTENTION ALL USERS. It has come to the attention of some admin that smut and other conversations or actions of a graphic sexual nature have been discussed or posted on this network, both in public and in private. THIS IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, FORBIDDEN. VIOLATORS WILL BE BANNED WITHOUT WARNING. If you want to talk smut, go to a network suitable for it."
2) On 2/7/2007 i posted my comments about the rule as it was written at that time in the MOTD on the Crossroads admin list.
3) On 2/9/2007 Jakkal, Bow, Rish and myself talked about the rules. Jakkal suggested a wording and we all liked it.
4) On 2/12/2007 i posted a comment based on the second paragraph of the sex-posting rules posted at the top of *this* thread not anything in the MOTD or anything previous to the discussion the admins had on 2/9/2007.
Jakkal, you came down on me as though i wanted more clarification on the rules as written above. You and Bow seem to be confusing Chris and my posts together or something. In the post on 2/7/2007 on the other list, i did ask for more clarifications, however that has no bearing on my post from 2/12/2007 and no bearing on how i see things now because things were *completely* different when i wrote the post on 2/12/2007.
In that post i was trying to think of all of the permeations of the rules as they stood *then*, which is not the way things stand now. I made this post on the 7th which is days ago and old news. In my post of the 12th i was *not* attempting to say that i thought the rules weren't good, just that i was uncomfortable with the words "rule of thumb" given the previous paragraph. I wanted that paragraph stricken or re-written. I have rewritten it and so far no-one has has said anything on that.
Bow, Jakkal Rish and others:
I am going to be "nitpicky" about the rules of this place. I care enough about this place to do that. I care enough about this place to spend the time working out the wording. When rules are posted they have to be clear, concise and easy to understand by all. That is not an easy thing to accomplish. No, Rish we can not just "Use the brains we were born with" as new people will not have your/our understanding and experience with the network.
For instance, if i and another person found the words "rule of thumb" unclear, it's not that we are stupid its that the wording is unclear to some people.
Also, PLEASE stop assuming that people just want to barge in to your house and cover the walls with Hustler magazine. When these rules were not enforced i wasn't seeing that happen, and i don't see any reason why this network would become irc.furnet.net (which from what i have seen isn't as bad as people say it is anyway). We have people like the four of us and others to make sure that would not happen. We tend to attract the personalties that would not allow that to happen, and the rules will further ensure that will not happen. Again, i like the rules.
We don't all pass the porn around to deliberatly arouse each other while we think about what we might look like in a sexy pink nighty. As far as i know noone does that. :) To be honest, when porn was linked it was always drawings/digital work and not photos or what have you. It was critqued: "What do you think of that pic?", Something is wrong with the angle of the left leg", or "nice". It wasn't "ohh, i'm gonna go paw off now, fap fap fap" or "that's hawt". Again, i'm not making an argument for looser porn rules or trying to prove that porn is ok on the network. I'm just saying that i think your imaginings of "smut" flying everywhere and virtual floors sticky with semen are overblown and frankly a bit insulting to the majority of us.
You asked for opinions and we are giving them. Again, thank you for that. We don't have "stupid" and "pointless" opinions, we aren't all drooling perverts who can't get laid. We have brains and we do use them thank you. Please quit insulting us.
What I don't understand about you, BC, is that this weekend, over IRC, you seemed just fine and dandy what we came up with.
Now, suddenly, in here, you're not.
I'm sure Jakkal will have much, much more to say on this matter.
And .. again .. for the god-knows-how-many-th time... We're asking for input. Not opinion.
But, given the opinions I've been seeing about, "just let it all in," what am I supposed to think about the users? Some seem real interested in pushing this back as far as they can get it.
And for the record, I don't know what your experiences with Furnet are. I went there for a couple of months off and on to talk to *one* person. I never joined any other channels, but I did do a channels list. Now, I don't know what goes on in said channels, but the list is... well... interesting.
579 total channels, so forgive me if I don't list all but what are, in my opinion, highlights. #maleyiff, #babyfurs, #raisedtailcafe, #bondagefurs, #forcedyiff, #dragonyiff, #hermsyiff, #rotten (the anything-that-goes fetish channel,) #zoo, #oralyiff, #rubberfurs, #cumsalot, #bondage.de, #diaperlovers, #FurryVore, #horseyiff, #oviposition, #hyperyiff, #group_yiff, #inflation, #MacroYiff, #nymphofurs, #vore, #ageplay, #ageregression, #domination, #OzFetishFurs, #analyiff, #germanyiff, #GingaYiff, #liveyiff, #fatyiff, #gryphon-yiff, #hardvore, #openvore, #pregfurs, #uncut, #furgasmicyiff, #scatz, #bondageplay, #dinoyiff, #muscleyiff, #wolvesyiff...
I got 1/4 of the way down the list. Literally. I don't have the time to pick through any more.
I did see one channel that might actually draw my interest. And just one. #spiritual. I also know, several months ago, that somebody had formed a #therianthropy channel. Don't know if it got popular or not, but when I looked in there, there was one active user, who complained that none of the furs seemed to understand therianthropy, or stuck around long enough .. or did anything but idle. Kinda sad.
Could Crossroads turn like that? Well yeah, it's possible. If we stopped ignoring it and let anything go. Will it? Fuck no.
Unleash your inner animal soulpartner within. Join other Therians in a discussion of the many differences and similarities between the subcultures of furredom. | Description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Therianthropy#Therianthropy_vs._furry_fandom
Bow replied to my email box directly, due to the suckage of google groups. I got it at 5:05 am and i think it was probably in responce to one of mine. Here is his text. --------------------------------------- First, please note of the difference between opinion and input.
There's a problem. We want help resolving this problem in order to make everybody happy.
We're not getting solutions. We're getting complaints.
That .. is .. infuriating. And the more this goes around the more I wish we hadn't worked so hard to draw everything back together again.
There aren't going to be any instabans. That threat is one of the reasons Rish decided to split. And I made that threat in haste, because I was pulled into a situation that quickly became a deep, entangled mess, and then I find out that this beloved network... the one that *I* care enough about to help administer to and run a server on (you think you're fond of it...) is home to netsex and the trading of porn pictures?
No. Fucking. Way.
So I was angry. Enraged, even. The rules have never changed; porn has NEVER BEEN ALLOWED. And many of you have been on for years, and you should know that. Situations that were apparently becoming commonplace in the chat were in violation of the rules, and in violation of the reason Crossroads was even started. I can't tell you the depths of my disappointment in most of our users for committing these acts, or for allowing them to go on so long.
So out of my anger came a threat. "Do it anymore, and you're banned." I wanted an immediate stop to this behavior. And, like it or not, or agree with my ways or not, it worked.
Will it remain that way? No. We'll deal with situations as they arise, and try to take into account all the facts. Then, once we determined what happened, we'll deal with the situation accordingly. Will this result in a ban? Possibly, depending on exactly what happened.
Ironically enough, people, guess what? The situation that spawned the "instaban" threat? Y'know, the one everybody's throwing a fit about? Guess how many people were banned for what they did to start this all up?
Bowtie said: "What I don't understand about you, BC, is that this weekend, over IRC, you seemed just fine and dandy what we came up with.
Now, suddenly, in here, you're not."
I am fine and dandy with them. There is no suddenly about it. Here's what i don't understand. I have said many many many times now i don't have a problem with the rules. I like the rules. I love the rules. I would make love to the rules, but that would violate said rules :). How many times and how many ways can i say it? I was concerned about the LANGUAGE of the second paragraph. I am not the only one who was confused so there is a problem with the LANGUAGE, not the spirit, not the rules.
"I'm sure Jakkal will have much, much more to say on this matter." Great, i look forward to her opinon.
"And .. again .. for the god-knows-how-many-th time... We're asking for input. Not opinion." I gave you input. i said in the "Input" thead at 305 am this morning:
Again, i have no problem with the first paragraph. I would rather that the second paragraph said:
"If you are unsure as to whether a link is deemed inappropriate by the preceding rule and an admin is not there to instruct you, do not post the link if you would not be comfortable publicly displaying it's contents in your average place of business."
If you don't like the "and an admin is not there to instruct you" then drop it. However, what the hell are we there for? Op hopping? No, Ops can't answer this question. Admins can. We have what 3 admins on at any given time? That's not a lot of hoping and all we have to do is talk to each other.
Bow said: "But, given the opinions I've been seeing about, "just let it all in," what am I supposed to think about the users? Some seem real interested in pushing this back as far as they can get it." I don't know who's been saying "just let it all in." Of course some people are gonna want to push this as far as they can get it. That's to be expected. Human nature. We will write the rules and their pushing will be contained.
Here's what i don't understand. I have said many many many times now i don't have a problem with the rules. I like the rules. I love the rules. I would make love to the rules, but that would violate said rules :). How many times and how many ways can i say it? I was concerned about the LANGUAGE of the second paragraph. I am not the only one who was confused so there is a problem with the LANGUAGE, not the spirit, not the rules.
I'm *not* flipping out about the instaban thing. I'm pointing out that where my initial post came from and how the timing may have gotten all fucked up between Jakkal's and my communication. I'm not saying that what you did was nessesarily wrong, just this may be why people are flipping out at you. I might have had a similar reaction. I don't blame you.
Damn it! I'm on YOUR side in this. I'm sitting here arguing with you and i AGREE with the rules and YOUR stance, yet my input has been ignored and misread and i've been insulted and told not to give it when asked for it.
This google thing isnt' making it any easier. Also the fact that we have 3 threads open about this just adds to the confusion. I make a post and then have to clarifiy it over the other theread and then post another thread just to tie things up.
For what it's worth, I'm fine with "Don't post it if it's meant as porn, and if you don't know, don't post it if you wouldn't want someone seeing it over your shoulder in an office or library." I can understand it, I agree with the reasoning behind it, and I'm getting tired of users complaining about such a simple issue that, on the whole, really doesn't amount to a hill of beans if they have to go without.
I respect the wishes of the people who pay for and maintain this server, and whether or not I did, I agree that having the situation as it was was harmful to Crossroads functioning as a gathering place for therians. It distracts the people who are here from why we come here, and can easily turn away newcomers.
So yeah, that's my input. I'm happy with the rule as stated above, and I think it does a fine job explaining the policy. If I misunderstood the rule, well, please let me know.
Wow people sure know how to complicate things. All of this over sex.
Paragraph 1: "Discussions about sex, even humorous, or vulgar discussions are okay, as long as acts, or depictions are not described, and that includes visually and verbally. Tasteful nudity is okay, anything meant to arouse is not. What we mean by "tasteful" is that the 'bits' or 'naughties' are shown/described but not the focus. Anything with sexually aroused parts (erect penis, any juices, acts thereof) or made to arouse the viewer is not okay. This also includes pictures and text descriptions. "
Ok well thought out very concise. This should be where it ends. If you want to be truly nitpicky this paragraph is Not Safe for Work. In a professional environment there is no Sex talk period. So this leads me to paragraph 2.
Paragraph 2: "The general rule of thumb that users are expected to go by is the following: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The Crossroads Network." We are trusting you to use your own good judgment here. "
This paragraph is not needed. I think that is the point that the confused masses are trying to get at, no offense. As I stated before paragraph 1 does an awesome job of laying out the rules. Everyone is in an uproar over what is defined as Not Safe for Work. So by logic remove that term and whole paragraph and just use the first one for the rules since it is clear.
So to summarize the rules as I understand them: If you're here for your sexual jollies get the fuck out or we will help you out.
I think Jakkal is very fond of her rule of thumb. Semi I tried doing what you are, it won't get you anywhere. Even a rephrase is out of the question, apparantly. Jakkal is pleased with what she has, and doesn't really give a shit about our imput, we're just nitpickers and troublemakers on the topic.
On Feb 16, 9:54 am, "Trian...@gmail.com" <Trian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Jakkal is very fond of her rule of thumb. Semi I tried doing > what you are, it won't get you anywhere. Even a rephrase is out of > the question, apparantly. Jakkal is pleased with what she has, and > doesn't really give a shit about our imput, we're just nitpickers and > troublemakers on the topic.
And the purpose of this post was to... what? Make trouble? Thus kinda proving the point?
We're listening. We're just reacting very slowly. Especially me, as this has completely burned me out already.
Now, just who we listen to will depend largely on the behavior of that person.
Trianine I think your wrong in your assumption about Jakkal. She does give a shit about input otherwise she would say fuck you get out of my channel, without even trying to compromise with people. Though I don't personally understand why everyone who loves Crossroads is getting so pissed off over sex. I guess a society raised to idolize sex and can find that to be the only grounds for a conversation would really be pained over this topic, but that is an argument for another time. Back to your post the owners of the channel would rather sex not even be a topic, by my understanding, and yet they are trying to hash out a way to please as many people as possible.
