Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 wrecan Apr 16, 2008 12:13:30	This thread is a continuation of a discussion between myself and Awesome_Dude from [thread=1016158]this thread[/thread]. The conversation stemmed from the following comments by Gamer_Zero: Gamer_Zer0;15598534 wrote:
#2 awesome_dude Apr 16, 2008 12:26:01	Yes. Facebook was prosecuted by the New York State Attorney General for not doing enough to protect minors using its forums from exposure to material inappropriate for minors. What, exactly, is to prevent a minor from accessing the Mature Forums? The hope that the minor won't lie about his birthday in the membership profile. Compared to Facebook, the Wizards Community is wide open. Thing is, we have all these active moderators here, and what I suggested was that the community police itself. Aside from that (because it's not a strong argument), if I changed my suggestion of the age limit to an age suggestion, with the caveat that members may ban you for being immature, then that would work better, I guess. Leniency would then not include posting nude pictures, but sensitive subjects would still be allowed (which is what I've been thinking all along; if I want porn I can go somewhere else as I've always done). Disclaimers are ineffective as to many minors. Why? because minors -- by the mere fact they are minors -- are immature. Conceded. Yes, but in those sites, the entire site is off-limits to minors. Few sites try to segregate portions of the site from minors. And in the wake of the Facebook lawsuit, expect many more sites to follow Wizards' lead -- at least until the law becomes more settled in this area, or technology improves the ability to screen out minors pretending to be mature. Conceded. That's the only thing they are paid to do. If they do it badly, by allowing public pressure to effect their jobs, they aren't doing their jobs. Your declaring that they made an error is not going to persuade them or anybody else otherwise. I'm saying that they are error-prone as all living things are. I don't agree with their decision, but now at least I'm aware that Andrew Cuomo is responsible for its basis, and at least he did it for a noble reason. For me, the only remaining question is why materials from the Book of Vile Deeds is even available to be accessed from Wizards' own gallery? They can rely on retailers to ensure minors don't see materials inappropriate for minors, but their website is available to anybody and minors can access the gallery of the Book of Vile Deeds with two clicks from the main D&D Page. This confuses everyone, I think.
#3 wrecan Apr 16, 2008 12:40:59	Thing is, we have all these active moderators here, and what I suggested was that the community police itself. Which is a fine suggestion, but it doesn't change the fact that minors can still access the site easily. The problem isn't who does the monitoring, but what they monitor for. Aside from that (because it's not a strong argument), if I changed my suggestion of the age limit to an age suggestion, with the caveat that members may ban you for being immature, then that would work better, I guess. I don't think so, though I understand what you're getting at. The problem is that a minor who lies to get on the site, and then never posts -- he is just a lurker -- will get exposed to the materials on the site, and will never be banned for immaturity. And exposure (as opposed to immature actions) is what the Facebook lawsuit was about. Leniency would then not include posting nude pictures, but sensitive subjects would still be allowed (which is what I've been thinking all along; if I want porn I can go somewhere else as I've always done). I don't think that's any different than what Gamer_Zer0 has said the policy will be (and currently is). The Mature Forums will have the same editorial standards as other forums. I.e., if you can talk about autoerotic cannibalism on the Mature Board, you can do so on the Player's Board. However, the Mature Board will be the repository for such sensistive discussions. For example, if someone begins a post in the Players' Board that begins "My character gets a sexual thrill from consuming his own flesh -- can you give me some role-play tips?", the thread would get moved to the Mature Board, not because it violated the CoC, but because the topic is most appropriate for the Mature Boards (or whatever they end up getting called). As for why the BoVD gallery is still accessible, my guess is that CM -- which runs the Wizards Community -- is more on the ball than Wizards webmaster, who hasn't gotten around to removing the troublesome pictures. Frankly, having looked at the gallery, the only artwork I think would possibly be troublesome would be the Pain Extractor, and I'm not even sure that one is all that bad.
#4 Zherog Apr 16, 2008 13:17:46	As for why the BoVD gallery is still accessible, my guess is that CM -- which runs the Wizards Community -- is more on the ball than Wizards webmaster, who hasn't gotten around to removing the troublesome pictures. Frankly, having looked at the gallery, the only artwork I think would possibly be troublesome would be the Pain Extractor, and I'm not even sure that one is all that bad. It's not just the BoVD art; there's an image in the Monster Manual (the nymph maybe?) that the mods have said posting would result in a warning, because it's too risque. And there's stuff in other books as well. For example, there's a partial ass cheek showing in a Libris Mortis image, and so that's another image in the gallery that could result in a member getting a warning on the forum.
#5 xiuhcoatl Apr 16, 2008 13:59:16	It's not just the BoVD art; there's an image in the Monster Manual (the nymph maybe?) that the mods have said posting would result in a warning, because it's too risque. And there's stuff in other books as well. For example, there's a partial ass cheek showing in a Libris Mortis image, and so that's another image in the gallery that could result in a member getting a warning on the forum. The nymph, the succubus, the mermaid, and the dryad are all MM3.5 artworks considered too risque to post on these forums and thus result in a warning - despite being freely available on the forum's home page and in the core rule book. Linking to the MM3.5 art gallery itself is considered too risque for this forum and thus would result in a warning. Just as linking to the Leonardo DaVinci page on Wikipedia would be considered too risque for this forum (and thus result in a warning). Or linking to the Hercules page, for that matter. All of which would have legitimate uses (detailing how a super-genius might view the world, or how to place a demi-god into a setting), and all are banned from posting without worry of a warning. Just as well, linking to anything involving the Jabba the Hutt / Leia scenes from Star Wars: Return of the Jedi are considered too risque for this forum and thus would result in a warning. This is a rule that strongly needs revision.
#6 Seeker95 Apr 16, 2008 14:18:59	This is a rule that strongly needs revision. I would suggest that it may not need revision, but rather, deserves examination for its potential (in)consistency in light of the other products and sections available on the WotC website. However, it has been a long time since my URL for the forums mentions WotC. While it contains links to the WotC website, none of these links go directly to material that would violate the CoC under even the most restrictive reading. Linking to the WotC website (rather than to the gallery image of the nymph) is akin to linking directly to Wikipedia rather than to the da Vinci page.
#7 wrecan Apr 16, 2008 15:27:56	I would suggest that it may not need revision, but rather, deserves examination for its potential (in)consistency in light of the other products and sections available on the WotC website. What needs to be done is Wizards needs to get its webmaster to remove the specific images that it feels are inappropriate for minors to see. If this is a liability issue, Wizards is just as much at risk for an image on its website as for one that is posted to a message. If the nymph is inappropriate it should not be on Wizard's art gallery. There is nothing on the website that should be barred from posting on the forums. If there is, it needs ot be removed from the website, not the forums.
#8 Seeker95 Apr 16, 2008 18:36:16	What needs to be done is Wizards needs to get its webmaster to remove the specific images that it feels are inappropriate for minors to see. Now you too are reacting instead of thinking through what you have already stated. If this is a liability issue, Wizards is just as much at risk for an image on its website as for one that is posted to a message. If the nymph is inappropriate it should not be on Wizard's art gallery. Not true. Wizards of the Coast does not have a membership application process to visit its website. The content of the WotC website is 100% regulated by the company with a priori censorship ability. The only liability it has for its content in that respect is with regard to the laws regarding what any corporation can post on its website. The forums on the other hand, not hosted on the Wizards of the Coast website, do have a membership application and a code of conduct. The forums have content posted by individuals other than WotC. The code of conduct applies to the Forums strictly as a liability protection. And the more strictly that code is enforced, the more protection it provides. THe website can host much more risque material because there is no scope creep and line pushing involved. The website presents only what the corporation wants it to present. The forums are eternally subject to scope creep and line pushing. The "Mature Forums" are evidence of that. WotC gave the membership an inch. The members took a mile. There is nothing on the website that should be barred from posting on the forums. If there is, it needs to be removed from the website, not the forums. There is plenty on the website that is barred form posting on the forums. Copyright issues alone are proof of that. Go back to thinking with the same criteria you were using when discussing with Awesome_Dude. Legal matters are purely legal. And what can be posted on the WotC website is of a different legal nature than what can be posted on the forums.
#9 wrecan Apr 16, 2008 18:55:47	Seeker95, the New York State litigation on Facebook was not related in any way to the membership agreement Facebook had with its members. It was strictly based on the materials that it allowed minors to access. If, as I suspect, the change in editorial policy is a reaction to the Facebook prosecution, then whether the content is on a webpage or a forum is irrelevent as a legal distinction. The only issue is whether minors can view materials inappropriate for them to view. Wizards has decided that the artwork of the Monster Manual nymph is inappropriate for minors. That analysis should apply equally to the forums and the website, membership agreement or not. (Minors cannot be legally bound by membership agreements anyway.)
#10 gamer_zer0 Apr 16, 2008 19:28:25	I think this is a good discussion. Unfortunately, I can't really add a lot when it comes to the discussion of legal matters. I would suggest that it may not need revision, but rather, deserves examination for its potential (in)consistency in light of the other products and sections available on the WotC website. I am in agreement here. I think that we need to figure out what we want to do with the forum formerly known as "mature", and seperately figure out what our overall policy is for posting of WotC art on our forums.
#11 Webster Apr 16, 2008 21:20:42	What often gets overlooked is it's a discussion forum, not a "let's post images" forum. If people want to see the WotC images, they can go over to the art gallery.
#12 xiuhcoatl Apr 16, 2008 21:45:00	and seperately figure out what our overall policy is for posting of WotC art on our forums. If these forums are not a part of WoTC (in so much that posting content from the WoTC website would violate rules of these forums), then perhaps sending a clear message that these forums are not part of the Wizards of the Coast company needs to be said. Remove the "Wizards of the Coast" branding across the top, if what is freely available on the Wizards of the Coast website is not allowed on this forum. Because up until now, I assumed that Wizards of the Coast held some ownership or control over these forums - I had no idea this was a third party website. And if it is not a third-party website, stop treating it as such - if it says Wizards of the Coast in the forum heading, it's a Wizards of the Coast forum. And thus WoTC content ought to be allowed on the WoTC forum. As they say, if it quacks like a duck ... What often gets overlooked is it's a discussion forum, not a "let's post images" forum. So what happens when someone asks, "Where is the MM3.5 art gallery?" Is it fair to warn someone for giving them the URL to the MM3.5 art gallery? Is it fair to warn the OP for asking for links to the MM3.5 art gallery (since they would be asking for a link to "explicit" material)? What happens if there is a conversation on Hercules, and someone posts his or her sources for their information (Wikipedia in this example). Is it fair to warn them for posting a link to the Hercules page of Wikipedia? Because right now, that's how the rules are. If you link to a page that contains "explicit" (as defined not by the CoC but by one of the WizO's) material (such as the Wikipedia page mentioned above, or the MM3.5 art gallery), it is a warnable offense.
#13 Seeker95 Apr 16, 2008 22:01:51	Xiuhcoatl, assuming that your questions are actual questions the answers to which you are seeking understanding, perhaps you could share with us some of your potential answers? With your current understanding of the circumstances, what would be your answers to these questions: So what happens when someone asks, "Where is the MM3.5 art gallery?" Is it fair to warn someone for giving them the URL to the MM3.5 art gallery? Is it fair to warn the OP for asking for links to the MM3.5 art gallery (since they would be asking for a link to "explicit" material)? What happens if there is a conversation on Hercules, and someone posts his or her sources for their information (Wikipedia in this example). Is it fair to warn them for posting a link to the Hercules page of Wikipedia? In follow up to that, what would be your proposed ideal answers to these same questions?
#14 Webster Apr 16, 2008 22:30:50	So what happens when someone asks, "Where is the MM3.5 art gallery?" Why would they be asking for that on the mature boards? It sounds more like a general, or better yet, monster lair question. What happens if there is a conversation on Hercules... Again, why would that be mature material? And your earlier example of Divincci's statue... really.. what does THAT have to do with D&D? It just appears you want to post nude images for the sake of posting nude images. There are plenty of other websites for that. ;)
#15 madprak_mark2 Apr 16, 2008 22:44:34	What needs to be done is Wizards needs to get its webmaster to remove the specific images that it feels are inappropriate for minors to see. If this is a liability issue, Wizards is just as much at risk for an image on its website as for one that is posted to a message. If the nymph is inappropriate it should not be on Wizard's art gallery. There is nothing on the website that should be barred from posting on the forums. If there is, it needs ot be removed from the website, not the forums. Except that you need to log in to use the website at all now, and they may as well just put all that stuff as age-restricted along with the mature boards, as they've had the forums that way for, what, 6 years or so? And it's worked out fairly well...
#16 royalblueeyes Apr 16, 2008 23:00:00	Why would they be asking for that on the mature boards? It sounds more like a general, or better yet, monster lair question. Again, why would that be mature material? And your earlier example of Divincci's statue... really.. what does THAT have to do with D&D? It just appears you want to post nude images for the sake of posting nude images. There are plenty of other websites for that. ;) Or better yet, there is actual method to his madness. If it is an offense to post it in mature, than it is an offense through and through. If they were to post the link or image in the Monsters forum, it would still be risque. Thus we come back to the fact, why WotC has some ownership of these forums, but still can not have one or two, if not more, pages accessed from their site, solely for the reason that the images WotC has licensed, produced, and displayed in an art gallery on their own site, are too risque for their forums. Thus we enter a circular paradox. If you had a treasure and loot forum, and you were saying that you gave your pc's a statue vaguely reminiscent of the Da Vinci; and some uncultured player asked, "What's a Da Vinci?" or "Who's Hercules?" the most simple and easiest of methods would then be disallowed from use, solely because the moderators find nonsexual material too explicit and risque when it is clearly ART. NOT PORNOGRAPHY. How can you quickly, easily, and efficiently remind or inform someone of something you'd consider to be common knowledge without linking them to some other site where it was all ready typed out? You couldn't, unless you found a site of some questionably prudish morality-bent that censors artwork. But then what happens on the mature forums is solely the problems of the mature forums, I assume?
#17 calronmoonflower Apr 16, 2008 23:52:13	Why would they be asking for that on the mature boards? It sounds more like a general, or better yet, monster lair question. It doesn't matter which forum that it is posted on the code of conduct is supposed to be the same everywhere. This statement just dodges the issue. Now what if the post was for art from the Book of Exalted Deeds or Book of Vile Darkness. Both are what the mature forum was created to discuss and both contain nudity and the BOVD contains violent images.
#18 Webster Apr 17, 2008 0:30:47	Monster Manual 3 is NOT a mature book. Asking for the gallery isn't a quesetion for the mature boards any more than asking if there are any players in CA. It's not avoiding the question, it goes right to it. It would be off topic for the mature boards. The Code of Conduct didn't enter my response.
#19 calronmoonflower Apr 17, 2008 3:20:11	The Code of Conduct didn't enter my response. Yet, there is a forum where it is on topic and then the code of conduct would come into play there. As it is you dodged the question by picking on part of it that was incorrect and mainly irrelevant to the point of that question. You also ignored the main issue by doing so. Though you should be really the one to answer, you should really pass the concern on to someone that can.
#20 Webster Apr 17, 2008 3:44:55	Question: So what happens when someone asks, "Where is the MM3.5 art gallery?" Answer: It would be moved to the proper forum. ;) That's to the rresponse that the mature forums is a discussion board, not a "Let's post pictures!" forum.
#21 xiuhcoatl Apr 17, 2008 6:41:01	Xiuhcoatl, assuming that your questions are actual questions the answers to which you are seeking understanding, perhaps you could share with us some of your potential answers? With your current understanding of the circumstances, what would be your answers to these questions: So what happens when someone asks, "Where is the MM3.5 art gallery?" Is it fair to warn someone for giving them the URL to the MM3.5 art gallery? Is it fair to warn the OP for asking for links to the MM3.5 art gallery (since they would be asking for a link to "explicit" material)? What happens if there is a conversation on Hercules, and someone posts his or her sources for their information (Wikipedia in this example). Is it fair to warn them for posting a link to the Hercules page of Wikipedia? In follow up to that, what would be your proposed ideal answers to these same questions? I would review on a case-by-case basis. Linking to anything from WoTC should be allowed, period - there's no excuse as to why something on the WoTC main page should be disallowed on their forums. As far as linking to Wikipedia pages, largely it should be allowed - while not the greatest source, it is better than making blatant statements about topics. And it's considered a bit better to link to your source rather than saying "just search for _____" ... Again, why would that be mature material? And your earlier example of Divincci's statue... really.. what does THAT have to do with D&D? It just appears you want to post nude images for the sake of posting nude images. There are plenty of other websites for that.;) Strawman attack. I have no interest in posting nude images - you're right, that's what 4chan is about. However, it is considered "mature" material because posting the wikipedia link to either shows nudity - statutes and old paintings are considered explicit material on the WoTC forum, even if they're fine for the Christian church (the Sistine chapel artwork, for example, is considered too explicit for WoTC - even its mature forum). As far as what DaVinci has to do with D&D? "Hi, I'm playing a Gnome crafter with a focus on crazy steampunk devices! Does anyone have any ideas on what I could make ...?" "Yes, here is a link to Leonardo DaVinci, someone who's legendary for his genius at building unique devices..." Question: Answer: It would be moved to the proper forum. Incorrect. Currently it would warrant a warning - posting said link on any forum is against the CoC as it stands now. Keep in mind I am not arguing for being able to post links to pornography - I have never asked for that. That's what 4chan is for, after all. I am arguing against the severe limitations that the current viewing of the CoC (which affects more than just the Mature forum, though it seems specifically limited due to its respective art galleries) imposes. The consequences of which, I believe, were not fully understood by the administration / moderators when it was put into place. To assert otherwise would be nothing more than a strawman attack.
#22 Zherog Apr 17, 2008 7:28:41	Question: Answer: It would be moved to the proper forum. ;) That's to the rresponse that the mature forums is a discussion board, not a "Let's post pictures!" forum. Webbie - I believe posting the 3.5 Monster Manual art gallery anywhere on the forums is a problem; posting the Hercules Wikipedia page anywhere on the forums is a problem; this specific issue isn't a Mature Forums issue -- it's a forum issue. People are accusing you of dodging the question because you're focusing in on the mature forums, and answering the question based on those things being posted there; but - just as an example - if somebody in the Deities and the Planes forum makes a post about including the Greek gods in his pantheon, that poster can't link to the Wikipedia page about Hercules.
#23 Webster Apr 17, 2008 7:38:55	Why the Mature Forums Has the Same Editorial Standard as Other Forums My mistake. I thought it was about the mature forums. :D The rule was created because of the abuses in the mature forum.
#24 xiuhcoatl Apr 17, 2008 8:03:42	My mistake. I thought it was about the mature forums. It is about why the mature forum follows the same CoC as the rest of the forum ... I don't really understand why you aren't getting it. If it changes the mature forum, it changes the rest of the board. Likewise, if the rest of the board changes, so too must the mature forum change.
#25 wrecan Apr 17, 2008 8:14:01	My mistake. I thought it was about the mature forums. With all due respect to you and your big grin smiley, I ask the following question in the very first post of this thread: For me, the only remaining question is why materials from the Book of Vile Deeds is even available to be accessed from Wizards' own gallery? They can rely on retailers to ensure minors don't see materials inappropriate for minors, but their website is available to anybody and minors can access the gallery of the Book of Vile Deeds with two clicks from the main D&D Page. This, too, is a topic of the thread. And that topic is: on what basis does Wizards allow material on its website they deem inappropriate for its forums? Note how this question is not specific to the Mature Boards. It's about inconsistent standards between the Wizards website and the Wizards forums. In my opinion, I think when cleaning house on the Mature Boards, some of the folks went a bit overboard when they interpreted this phrase from the Code of Conduct: [indent]2. Do not use, post, distribute or link to obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory language or content. This includes "masking" language by using alternative characters/spelling/spacing to get around profanity filters or claims of profanity filter "testing."[/indent] I think a good floor for such analysis should be that anything Wizards allows on its own website should be allowed on the forums. Certainly material on other websites would require judgment calls, but it makes no sense for the forums to bar people from linking to Wizards' own website for the reasons expressed in rule 2. In fact, if Wizards does not allow links to its own website, isn't that an admission that Wizards own website contains "obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory language or content"? I don't think that's a policy that Wizards wants hanging out there.
#26 xiuhcoatl Apr 17, 2008 8:26:13	Well said, wrecan.
#27 Webster Apr 17, 2008 8:37:30	Ah, I see, thanks for the clarifications. From what I understand, WotC material was used as a defense to allow posting other pictures. "Well, what about this?" Someone above my pay grade decided to just ban them all. I'm sure somewhere someone would reason (if WotC stuff were allowed to be posted,) that if you COULD post WotC material, why not other stuff? (Which would bring me back to my point. :P ) "Hi, I'm playing a Gnome crafter with a focus on crazy steampunk devices! Does anyone have any ideas on what I could make ...?" "Yes, here is a link to Leonardo DaVinci, someone who's legendary for his genius at building unique devices..." Awesome example! Thanks!
#28 royalblueeyes Apr 17, 2008 8:38:17	Well said, wrecan. Agreed. And as for Webster...I'll try to ignore the fact that s/he didn't read the answer they were looking for TWICE...
#29 Webster Apr 17, 2008 8:47:35	It is about why the mature forum follows the same CoC as the rest of the forum ... I don't really understand why you aren't getting it. If it changes the mature forum, it changes the rest of the board. Likewise, if the rest of the board changes, so too must the mature forum change. Actually, it ALWAYS followed the same rules as the other forums. The WizOs just "looked the other way" in most cases, and had to come down hard when necessary. It's the same as the other boards for consistency across the boards. If someone is posting regularly on the mature forums suddenly has a different set of CoC for the rest of the boards, they'd be confused and upset. The swear filter has to be on across the board. It couldn't be turned off for the mature board. And as stated, the WizOs would look the other way if there was some mild masking going on. All out swear flame wars were still not allowed, however.
#30 wrecan Apr 17, 2008 9:21:02	ASomeone above my pay grade decided to just ban them all. I'm sure somewhere someone would reason (if WotC stuff were allowed to be posted,) that if you COULD post WotC material, why not other stuff? (Which would bring me back to my point. :P ) The problem is that the decision (which I understand was not made by you) didn't resolve the issue. In fact, imo, it only exposed WotC to greater risk by essentially creating an admission that it's own website contains material inappropriate for minors. Yet the website has even fewer precautions against minors seeing inappropriate materials than the forums do. I understand you cannot change the policy, but can the thread be pointed out to those above your pay grade? Because I think the decision actively causes problems for Wizards that are greater than the problems it hoped to resolve.
#31 Webster Apr 17, 2008 9:27:46	Well.... It's just a rule for the forums. It was stated the rule could change in the future, but for now, that's what we're stuck with. It's not admitting WotC produces inappropriate material, it's say some folks went overboard on one of the forums, and the easiest way to handle it is not allow any of it. Sort of like the Katana discussion ban. Was WotC removing all references/material about katanas while putting a ban on the discussion on the board to cut back on all the flame wars? Nope.
#32 wrecan Apr 17, 2008 10:47:40	So this isn't a firm editorial policy -- just a cooling off period, like when alignment discussions were banned from Regdar's and katana discussions banned generally? Man, that should be explained in a sticky post somewhere.
#33 xiuhcoatl Apr 17, 2008 11:07:37	So this isn't a firm editorial policy -- just a cooling off period, like when alignment discussions were banned from Regdar's and katana discussions banned generally? Man, that should be explained in a sticky post somewhere. Nope, the rule is set. See this post. It isn't changing. So the absurdity remains. And apparently questioning the administration about this is considered a CoC violation and thus can result in a warning, if CS is to be believed.
#34 wrecan Apr 17, 2008 11:26:07	Nope, the rule is set. See this post. You mean the post that says "this is subject to change as the community evolves or if we find additional rules need to be put in place"? That's the same thing that I saw when they declared alignment threads verboten in Regdar's and katana threads verboten generally. And both of those policies eventually got revoked after a cool-down period. So, if Webster says this is a temporary policy to allow for a cool-down, then I believe Webster. Because making it a permanent policy would not only be nonsensical, but an active detriment to Wizards in case some legal entity were to try to make a federal (or multi-state) case out of minors' access to inappropriate materials. questioning the administration about this is considered a CoC violation and thus can result in a warning, if CS is to be believed. This is clearly the result of events of which I am not aware. So until I get warned that the subject is taboo, I'm not going to believe that statement.
#35 xiuhcoatl Apr 17, 2008 11:50:00	You mean the post that says "this is subject to change as the community evolves or if we find additional rules need to be put in place"? Specifically, I mean this ... Unfortunately, the decision has already been made by the upper levels, and the rule is "None". That doesn't say "None - for now" ... although I admit I could be a victim of selective reading.
#36 wrecan Apr 17, 2008 12:01:15	That doesn't say "None - for now" ... although I admit I could be a victim of selective reading. I think you may be, since the post ends with "Thank you though for trying to find a reasonable solution. I too hope the day comes where we will be able to use it." That indicates to me that the policy is to be temporary, and is the result of a perceived problem in the mature boards with posting prurient material that they hope will subside with time. It's only been five months. I'd give it a year. Most reasonably would be to start fresh after the Mature Boards get replaced by whatever takes place in June.
#37 autumn_serene Apr 17, 2008 20:02:32	Specifically, I mean this ... That doesn't say "None - for now" ... although I admit I could be a victim of selective reading. That does say "none for now"-- I think pretty clearly. If we get the forum back under control and that rule is revisited, I will use that guideline as a suggestion for what we use for the forum. But for now, the rule will stand. Thank you though for trying to find a reasonable solution. I too hope the day comes where we will be able to use it. There have been several posts like that. As well as some PMs to you personally. I have no idea if the rule will ever be looked at again. I'm extremely hopeful it will be. The "no nudity" rule was never stated on another board, just that one. That is why I asked that if the Mature boards were truly going to follow the same CoC as every other board, that they aren't moderated more extremely than anywhere else. I think the PG13 rating states its nudity rule very well-- it's no sexual nudity. That would mean that things like the links to Hercules would be exempt. I think we've all learned we need to have more explicit rules stated, but there have been great suggestions as to the wording. To me, the "no nudity" is much more editorial than conduct. Just like the katanas' discussion-- it was never against the CoC to talk about katanas. It was just the right thing to ban for a time period. To choose what is best for the boards at that point in time is CM now, so perhaps it can be reviewed. It's all moot however if the Mature boards goes away in a couple of months.
#38 gamer_zer0 Apr 17, 2008 23:37:01	To me, the "no nudity" is much more editorial than conduct. Just like the katanas' discussion-- it was never against the CoC to talk about katanas. It was just the right thing to ban for a time period. To choose what is best for the boards at that point in time is CM now, so perhaps it can be reviewed. I don't understand how that policy makes sense. Currently, it's being enforced as a CoC violation, not an editorial one. I haven't really looked into the issue enough to really make a recommendation, but at first glance, it does seem like this should be an editorial decision. We can take a better look at it after the forum re-org.
#39 wrecan Apr 18, 2008 5:40:18	Yay!
#40 alyss_dup Apr 20, 2008 13:04:15	Argg....why wait? This is like Astrid's all over again: why wait to solve the problem. It can be adressed right now, over the course of a week or something for ****'s sake.
#41 gamer_zer0 Apr 20, 2008 14:57:13	Argg....why wait? This is like Astrid's all over again: why wait to solve the problem. It can be adressed right now, over the course of a week or something for ****'s sake. There are only so many hours in the day, and there are literally hundreds of things we'd like to get done. Very few of those things involve just me, so even if I'm willing to work 80 hour weeks, things still have to wait for when others in the office are available to meet and talk about stuff.
#42 alyss_dup Apr 20, 2008 17:23:03	Excuses excuses! Mail me a plain ticket and I'll come and whip the staff into shape!
#43 autumn_serene Apr 23, 2008 12:40:34	I don't understand how that policy makes sense. Currently, it's being enforced as a CoC violation, not an editorial one. I haven't really looked into the issue enough to really make a recommendation, but at first glance, it does seem like this should be an editorial decision. We can take a better look at it after the forum re-org. It was enforced before the more clear split between the two, but I feel that now that the two are separate, it is more of an editorial decision and shouldn't be enforced as a CoC violation, of course I'm not sure where the decision came from, so perhaps there is a very good reason somewhere up the line. In terms of waiting- the only big question that has to be answered before the reorg is if there will be a mature board (with a different name) at all. ?
#44 seTiny Apr 23, 2008 13:02:31	In terms of waiting- the only big question that has to be answered before the reorg is if there will be a mature board (with a different name) at all. ? Sometime soonish G0 is going to post his next proposal for the forum reorg, you should have your answer when that happens. If he doesn't post an answer here directly.