Fwd: More of the NSFW rule debate

[Hugh Mc Guinness]

I tried to send this earlier (1530 GMT or so) but it bounced because I hadn't "joined" yet.
Here it is again.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hugh Mc Guinness <hugh.j.m...@gmail.com>
Date: 13-Feb-2007 15:34
Subject: More of the NSFW rule debate
To: crossr...@googlegroups.com

I have no feelings one way or another about whether or not to allow sexually explicit material/actions on the server. However, it is the admins server, not mine, my friends don't complain that I don't allow them to smoke marijuana in my house and I don't complain when they smoke it in theirs. There's obviously a big problem with the definition of the rules though if it's sparking so much debate.

The NSFW definition is not adequate in my opinion. Since Bow asked for us to speak up and try to help define a good set of rules I'll give it a shot.

"Users should not post links for which the primary purpose is sexual arousal. If a user posts an image of such a nature as defined by majority consensus of the users exposed to it they should be cautioned whether the infraction occurs in PM or a channel on the network. Users should report any serious or repeated infractions to an admin. Admins may deem any material to be of an objectionable nature in their judgement and any action may be taken to reprimand the user in question as they see fit. This rule shall also apply to the explicit description of acts of a sexual nature in both PM and channel."

Not perfect but it's a bit better. It relies on common decency which may not always be a good foundation, and is a bit vague on what a "reprimand" is but does leave leeway for the admins to think of something appropriate to the specific incident. The important part of it isn't really the reprimand anyway, it's the definition of what the rules prohibit.

 - Stonewolf

[Jakkal]

Ah no, you're putting too much emphasis on what they believe is 'decency'. That's why we worded the first part the way we did, it's rather undeniable.  It basically says to me 'If no one is offended in the channel at the time, it's okay to post" and that's not what any of the admins want.

[Hugh Mc Guinness]

"Users should not post links for which the primary purpose is sexual arousal. If a user posts an image of such a nature as defined by majority consensus of the users exposed to it"

What this says is that the users are required to consider if the material posted has a primary purpose of sexual arousal. Whether they consider it objectionable* is moot, if they consider it to have a primary purpose of arousal then they are required to do something about it by the rules.

If it is held to be of a primary sexual purpose then it is objectionable to the admins regardless of whether it is objectionable to the users, which is I believe the whole point of this debate in the first place.

[peirrin]

For simplicity sakes, I'll take NSFW to mean Nudity or Intestines
being spilled. I'm willing to jump into a side channel with those old
enough to view such things if I felt something was worth posting. We
do seem to be arguing an awful lot about what particular terms mean to
us individually, but, we need to think, unfortunatly from a liability
standpoint I'm thinking.
I do think some people are putting too much emphaisis on turning this
more into a philosophical debate, more than a basis of channel rules
that keeps our channels up and running and safe from litigation.

[Bowtie]

Peir: Yeah, exactly.

To summarize: They're nitpicking it. :)

At this point it seems obvious we need to remove the second paragraph
in lieu of something else, as people seem to be completely incapable
of making judgements for themselves.

What it comes down to is... they want something to point at and lay
the blame on when they inevitably fuck up and get their asses booted.

Cuz, see, the people who are bitching the loudest seem to be the ones
who would rather we have an "open door" policy on such matters.
"Sure, go ahead, fuck all over the server if you want! Leave the cum
pools! We'll clean up your mess!" Again... s'what furnet is for.