>>165090
I'm think more like "asking for input and giving some is fine, but claiming the obligation your input or your perceived majority's input has to be followed is silly, and whining about it is even more so."

>>165098
>Now, you're right, if you can take in users input, then come to a decision, and then tell all the people whose opinion didn't go through "tough shit this is how we decided it" then yeah, that can work. It would really make my day if someone complained about how the mods made a bad decision and then a mod replies "deal with it". The problem is that's not what's been happening, and I really don't trust ponychan to not listen to a vocal minority.

I think that is mostly what's been happening over the past like...year? Year and a half?

>>165099

And that, exactly. The chan needs a decision maker that will lay down the law and say "This is how things are going to be." And that person can't just do it based on his whims, he does need to ask the community what their feelings are and make decisions based on what people are looking for. That is the ideal. There's been a lot of obstacles to that in the past, but we're moving closer and closer to that ideal as we flow.

>>165100
Over maybe the last year, but we also haven't had a lot of site decisions (especially controversial ones involving porn) in the last year. Things have been pretty quiet so it's hard to asses how much things have really changed. For the most part people have just accepted the little changes we've had, so there hasn't been a need to tell users to deal with it.

>>165094
It's an expression

>>165098
Believing that the staff would consistently, or at the very least often, make the best possible decisions without listening to anybody outside of their echo chamber, requires a lot of confidence in the staff's decision making. Confidence that they simply haven't earned, and have in fact proven at every turn that they are incapable of making the best of, and absolutely require constructive feedback to do almost anything. That may change in some ways with the addition of Macil who is capable of making excellent technical decisions on instinct, but I personally don't trust the entire theoretical staff to make the best of their own raw instincts with zero user input. Which is not an insult; the ability to consistently make the best decisions is a LOT to ask of anybody, and to remove constructive feedback from the equation makes it even harder.

>>165098
>The problem is that's not what's been happening, and I really don't trust ponychan to not listen to a vocal minority.
Thats whats happening with the merger though.
>In hindsight, ponychan's mods weren't really draconic at all
Eh, yes and no. The rules weren't very clear and left a lot open of interpretation but that let the mods be draconic. And Orange just did whatever he felt like without even asking the users.

I agree entirely on the grey area point though. I think adopting MLPchan's or Efchans rules regarding non-porn lewd being posted would be good since both of those rules are very clear and leave little grey area.

>>165103
MLPchan's rules for smut (not counting mature-tagged threads, which are allowed on a couple of boards):
>Depictions of sex acts, genitals, female nipples, sex fluids, and underage sexualization are prohibited.

Pretty specific, and aligns with what people tend to find objectionable. "Underage sexualization" is vague, but IIRC it had to be because laws. Gray area is small.

>>165104
That seems like it'd work. I have to ask if those are the rules in place, why are we doing this "ok guys would this be ok?" thing?
>>165102
Fair enough, but honestly at this point I would rather ponychan make an awful decision and stick by it than make an ok decision and constantly change it into a worse one.
>>165103
>Thats whats happening with the merger though.
The merger hasn't even happened yet, we can't asses how the staff handled something that didn't happen.
>Eh, yes and no. The rules weren't very clear and left a lot open of interpretation but that let the mods be draconic. And Orange just did whatever he felt like without even asking the users.
The mods really weren't draconic, they were pretty standard for a site, it's just that ponychan's userbase were completely spoiled so anything resembling a mod enforcing a rule was seen as draconic and evil.

>>165104
>Depictions of sex acts
This is fairly vauge, especially considering >>165063 as an example. To quote someone in the MLPchan thread "it clearly has two characters deliberately touching the genitals of a third. However, they appear to be doing a 'hand bikini' thing rather than actively stimulating those genitals."

Where exactly does that fall? Most people here said it was 2lewd, but MLPchan doesn't delete it.

>>165106

The hard stance here to make things actually "SFW", to make things actually pleasantly viewable by people who don't want porn would be to remove things that include so much as a sultry glare. Which wouldn't even be wrong or draconic or overpowering or whatever. It's just that if people do not like sexual themes, all sexual themes should be removed.

What we actually do is move that line over to...well...a really rather grey area at the moment. Most of us can tell pretty easily when something goes over our lines, but actually writing down a definition for those lines is a lot harder. And we inevitably leave behind a whole lot of very obviously sexual content and call it okay.

MLPchan goes a bit further with a hardline stance that bans genitalia, basically, so at least the rules are clear and people know what's up, but then stuff like >>165063 goes through and everyone thinks it's okay. I do not really understand why that would be okay, but as soon as her nipples appear it's undesirable.

Which is not to say I would not understand that just being okay, I'm not actually someone who dislikes pornography on any level, but I am unsure as to what the lines that we have drawn are accomplishing.

I wonder if this merger will really work out the way it's supposed to.

>>165090
See >>165099

Yeah people might hate me / the mods for not following their idea, but it doesn't mean the idea was discarded.

More data is always good, especially since some people are fucking twats in that they dont say anything unless prompted.
Pleasing everybody is impossible, but getting the majority to contain their mammary calamity over an issue is still valuable.

---------
Anyway, the consensus seems to be that people are mostly alright with the merger, except for hiccups about rule enforcement.

>Too draconian
>Not draconian enough.

Reposting from /site/

The specific problem we're having right now though is that the image is ambiguous about
>Depictions of sex acts

Which is why i also included the second image, i could have also cut the image in half at the waist to accomplish the same thing.

As changeing the listed rules in the OP all of a sudden would be a bad idea, i'm going to ask for opinions.
Might not actually do what you want, but every opinion would be considered.

In the interest of clarity, would you prefer the global rules listed in the OP:

No pornography or overtly sexual images outside of /anon/
No gore or images of extreme violence outside of /anon/

be changed to:

Depictions of sex acts, genitals, female nipples, sex fluids are prohibited outside of /anon/
Depictions of explicit dismemberment, torture, or butchery are prohibited outside of /anon/

respectively.

Because even with the "clarified" rules, i would still delete the aforementioned image because of the the location of the dudes hands over her crotch causing ambiguity.
I know i make mistakes, i know everyone makes mistakes, but in ambiguous situations like this, i consider it better for a mod to err on the side of caution and be considered fun police.
Because the alternative is doing nothing and potentially causing a consistency problem when a similar image is posted that is less ambiguous but still arguably within the rules.

What it boils down to is essentially "Where do we draw the line." because on one side, too much is allowed and a person is allowed to break the rules while on the other side, not enough is allowed and people get punished for something undeserved.

Personally, i'm okay with being considered hitler-satan if the rules were enforced as consistently as possible.

I've given a suggestion to mergechat that might solve the problem, but i wont mention it here yet because i dont want to suggest something no other mod would get behind only reason i'm mentioning it at all is so it doesnt seem like i've just pulled it out of my ass at the last minute in response to something.

>>165108
I honestly think that if people keeps making brickwalls over porn this wont work well

Nobody should expect it to work 100% the first day.
We are two cultures that got much in common, with one of the biggest differences being the allowed lewdness.
The MLP staff needs to clean up some while the Poni staff needs to get dirtier.
New rules of whats allowed means that the balance will move in both directions before the scale is fixed.
Some mods will probably delete something just to be on the safe side, while others will allow more just to not be called a nazi.
Give it time, and I am sure that it will be great in the end.
...after a humpy ride... and more warnings than bans...

>>165108
I think it's being exaggerated how much actual difference there is. We're talking about a small number of hypotheticals here, not the 95% of cases where the rules already overlap between the two sites, and even if there is some inconsistency on these borderline cases (protip: there is always going to be inconsistency on borderline cases no matter what), the maximum punishment that's going to be handed out over them is the image getting removed. So its not like there are irreconcilable differences that are going to sink a merger here

>>165098
I agree that a strong, consistent vision is important. That's not to say that the userbase shouldn't be consulted, but if there's no driving force, things do become more arbitrary and subject to individual reinterpretation. This site's certainly experienced both extremes, with an admin who has imposed their vision regardless of community attitudes, and another attempting to govern by poll and consensus but without a central vision to prevent paralysis.

And, yes, if this was, well, many community sites on the Internet, the moderation would have been seen as broadly permissive at any point (barring the odd incident). Rules about NSFW content and civility are far from unusual. It's only in the context of other imageboards that they seem harsh.

(I can't help but read "draconic" as "pertaining to dragons", but it is also a synonym for "draconian". TIL.)

>>165110
>Depictions of sex acts, genitals, female nipples, sex fluids are prohibited outside of /anon/
>Depictions of explicit dismemberment, torture, or butchery are prohibited outside of /anon/
I would vastly prefer these rules because they are, imo, a lot clearer and easily understood than what's been proposed in the OP.

this got pointed out on /site/ but now im banned there for some reason so

can you guys think of anything to replace "sex acts?" right now it's the only ambiguous part of that rule. can this be narrowed down any further?

>>165116
Here is ef's definition of porn:

Any depictions of sexual intercourse between consenting adults.
Any depictions of sexual fluids or signs of sexual arousal, i.e. ejaculatory fluid, pre-ejaculatory fluid, vaginal lubrication, sexual lubricant, and anal lubrication, but excluding genital erection.
Any depictions of masturbation.
Any excessively provocative display of genitalia including breasts, hips, anus, penis, and vagina specifically intended to incite sexual arousal or shock reaction.

Last edited at Thu, Jan 29th, 2015 10:14

>>165117
>hips
wtf

A good concept for how one image can be acceptable versus another involves the concept of synergy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy
The whole is greater than the some of it's parts. Though some of the parts might individually be enough to make a particular image unacceptable. There is a structure to this. It's not the most simple thing in the world but it can be broken down and analyzed.

>>165063
My own take on the picture is that there are multiple features that together make the image unacceptable.
*The gaze of the male characters is suggestive. The half lidded stare at you suggests the have something fun. In other contexts that gaze may mean other things. If it is the gaze alone and it is lusty I don't think I would want that to be against the rules unless someone were using such images on another user and they did not like it.
*The lack of clothing for all of the characters is meaningful. In some contexts that is not enough as there are tasteful nudes. But in this context her clothing is replaced by their hands. Added to the gaze and lack of clothing from the male characters things become suggestive. Other expressions would change the nature, a startled and concerned expression would mean they are trying to help her cover up. But this would make less sense and look weird because they males are naked too. Normally someone would try to cover without touching.
*The hands over her groin are not just covering her up, they are mashed up in there.
*The hands over her breasts with everything else make that sexual as well. As I mentioned above when one person is helping another to cover up they normally use something, or might stand in front of them without touching.

>>165090
I can agree that authorities that are too responsive to community concern would be forever changing things and would never make anyone happy. It is worth keeping in mind that we will never make everyone happy. But the way your comment is worded totally ignores the idea that this is a community and a combined community is what we are trying to create. There is no context of compromise which every community requires to different degrees. That requires some some community responsiveness from the authorities. Society is always changing and evolving and that needs to be taken into account. It's not always 10 users and even when it is there is nothing wrong with acknowledging what is bothering them and telling them why changing the rules is not going to happen in that case.

Any authorities need to be prepared for both acknowledging and communicating with people that will be disappointed, and situations where it is a significant part of the community. I think the best thing to do here would be to figure out how to make this balance happen for us.

>>165119
...that is one of the most pointless overexaminations I've ever seen.
>lusty gaze pic being a problem
Please don't tell me you're taking cartoon faces that seriously.

>>165118
I think he means ass but didn't want to say ass since he was trying to be all professional about da rurus.

>>165116
Personally I think "sex acts" is fine. In my opinion, there should be a little grey area. I've had experience with Rules Lawyers doing shit like "technically this isn't against the rules because you can't actually see a dick going in". I think "sex acts" does a perfectly fine job of communicating expectations on what is and isn't allowed while giving some flexibility to staff to deal with people trying to skirt the rules on technicalities.

Plus I'm wary of getting into a situation where things are enumerated to the point of silliness, like Ponychan had with "excessive saliva"

Imo, we're getting way to bogged down over this. It's pretty obvious when something sexual is happening in a picture and when something is just convenient censoring.
If you're not sure about an image there's no harm done in just deleting it anyway until someone else can correlate whether it#s okay or not.

>>165063
Wait is anyone actually arguing no? Because it's clearly an image depicting people doing naked sexy times.

As for whether it should be allowed I really dont care, I think things are good up until efchan levels, because once you allow porn people just make porn dump threads and that gets really boring

>>165110
>female nipples

That's sexist.

>>165117

I actually rather like that one.

>>165119

That's a pretty good take on it, yeah. Actually puts into words the stuff the rest of us were thinking.

>>165124
>Wait is anyone actually arguing no?

Well apparently the other site is arguing no and saying that it's okay. That is a picture allowed over there, but not over here.

Which I am repeating my opinion that if something like that is allowed, we may as well open the floodgates and allow full on porn. Visible genitals and nipples shouldn't even be a minor concern for what porn is. That makes weird shit like the statue of David porn.

I really want to hear from someone who disagrees why they are okay with that being on their screen, but not okay with some of Jolly Jack's other works.

>>165127
>I really want to hear from someone who disagrees why they are okay with that being on their screen, but not okay with some of Jolly Jack's other works.
>Jolly Jack's other works.
I'm assuming this is some euphemism for porn or like the artist' name and the artist makes porn?

I'm ok with that but less ok with full on porn because that encourages the making of porn dump threads which I find really boring and take away from QUALITY CONTENT ON PONYCHAN

That said I wouldn't mind anything being posted if we disallowed porn dump threads. But more porny porn still has a higher chance of causing a derail talking bout porn.

But personal opinions I guess, I just find porn boring and would rather not have a bunch of junk talking about it

>>165128

Well porn dump threads could be semi-easily moved to /anon/ now, which means we could actually hit them just for being off-topic for the board rather than "we really don't like those threads".

there generally shouldn't ever be porn dumps outside of /anon/, what with it being absolutely haram

>>165129
>moved to /anon/
Please no. Moved to /trash/. Nothing should ever be moved to /anon/. Suggestions like this are one of the most worrying thing about the merge for me.

And porn dumps would be deleted, being porn and all.

The question is the lewd image dumps that we used to get with things like "POST LITTLE GIRLS IN BIKINIS" wherein none of the images are against the rules, but in general, the thread serves no purpose other than to arouse the horny, repressed users of the board. Ponychan moves threads like that to deletion boards. I don't think MLPchan does, though I've not run across many threads of that nature, of the nature that dominated /oat/ for a few months a while back.

>>165131

Well hey, that's all fair, I just always thought that disallowing threads filled with otherwise totally okay pictures was weird and it'd be nice to have a place to shunt all the people that want that. I have always gone to /anon/ for the porn, I've saved some really awesome stuff from there, and because of that I may not have the same handle on its community as you do.

In any case, though, the idea that lewd images can be allowed without also allowing lewd image dumps is not a new one or something that's impossible to enforce, so my earlier point regarding the picture in question stands.

>>165131
Agree with this. While porn is allowed on /anon/, I think we should push back against the idea of it as a "porn board". First and foremost, it's an anonymous board. People there aren't going to appreciate being used as a porn repository for both anons and tripfags alike

so is porn going to be kept to /anon/ or is it going to be on the whole site now..?

>>165135
Nobody has said it will be anywhere else.

>>165134
>People there aren't going to appreciate being used as a porn repository

Well some of us would, obviously...

>>165135

No, I'm presenting a hypothetical situation, I don't think anyone is even considering allowing porn everywhere.

>>165137
alright good
thanks manda

>>165135
Porn is /anon/ only. Apart from people not wanting it, Orange would never allow this merger to go through if it was going to be NSFW sitewide, and since he's still a site owner, he basically has full veto power on the merger

>>165133
>the idea that lewd images can be allowed without also allowing lewd image dumps is not a new one or something that's impossible to enforce
Yeah I'd be fine with that and junk

>>165120
>...that is one of the most pointless overexaminations I've ever seen.
Tough.

>Please don't tell me you're taking cartoon faces that seriously.
Many things you enjoy without much thought are in fact quite serious.

>"According to a recent study published in the journal Social Neuroscience, looking at faces crafted from colons and parentheses can trigger the same facial recognition response in the occipitotemporal parts of brain that takes place when we gaze into meatspace visages of other humans."
http://www.wired.com/2014/02/brain-smiley-emoticon-science/
Drawings are more than simple emoticons.

>>165127
This is where the tourettic obsession with sex is useful. I think about this stuff in ridiculously detailed ways, but I'm not expecting people to do a huge amount of work because of any of it. Instead I'm hoping that I know something that might make this easier.

Last edited at Thu, Jan 29th, 2015 12:21

>>165131
What about asking /anon/ later if they would mind certain kinds of threads being moved there? There may be some things they would not mind if we gave you some control over it.

>>165144

Well I'm fairly certain Admiral is speaking as a user of /anon/. You could say he doesn't represent the whole board (again, he and I obviously disagree on the place) but I do expect that he's got a fair grasp of the situation.

>>165131
mlpchan does not allow little girls in bikinis. It's happened. Someone was expression viewering as child models.

No, MLPchan doesn't move things to deletion boards. They just delete them.That's what I would hope the policy stays moving forward with this.

>>165147
He meant 2D animus
>>165148
I agree with this, I never really cared for the moving threads thing and 20 hidden boards for specific cases.

>>165149
Oh, those. Yeah, we have those. But they usually don't even have bikinis. Disgusting. I hope you Ponychaners end it.

>>165063
Overtly sexual
>>165070
Still overtly sexual but... would depend on how we feel about whether or not vag gropping or boob gropping are one in the same.

>>165110
I think personally I'd rather go with: >>165117
That doesn't leave so much room for error.

>>165137
>>People there aren't going to appreciate being used as a porn repository
>Well some of us would, obviously...
I believe the polite term is a 'cum dumpster.'

>>165148
>>165149
There's going to be one "hidden" board for that, /trash/, on the new site

>>165153
Trashchan

New thread.