Posted January 19, 2012 This is probably a stupid question, too, and I'm sorry if this has already been answered. I have a lot to do, so I can't look through all of the posts. x3 We're not allowed to talk about viruses, spyware, or anything along those lines, but are can we still mention them in explaining our prolonged inactivity or something similar to that? Also, I've never heard of youtuberepeat before. 0.0 Mainly referencing posting links that will spread viruses and such methinks, not talking about your computer having a virus. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 19, 2012 Thank you for clearing that up, TJ! *nudges Walker* Share this post Link to post
Posted January 19, 2012 Yes! Thank you so much, TJ! I might actually participate in some of the discussions in GD now instead of just lurking! Blessed Be! ~Rain Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 Agreeable and fine with me, I appreciate this clarification. Anyways, I know I've been using Facebook too often when I want to click 'like' for this thread and I can't find it... >w< Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 I think artistic nudity should be allowed. There's a difference between it and porn. As for the illegal activities, the rules say accounts of illegal activities. If I'm reading correctly, it sounds like what is banned is people discussing, for example, their experiences in taking illicit drugs. There is a difference between personal accounts and debating the subject in question. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 I think artistic nudity should be allowed. There's a difference between it and porn. And I think after the last go-round with pushing all the lines to their breaking point trying to force a clear, unambiguous stance out of the mods, allowing artistic nudity would open things up to porn very quickly with people pressing the envelope until they reached it. After all, a good bit of classic art is erotic if not pornographic. Yeah, there is a difference between artistic nudes and porn, but the last set of guidelines were, in spirit, very similar to this one, but here people are quite relieved about them because they lack ambiguity whereas there was no end of misunderstanding over the others. Let them stay unambiguous. I say that as an artist who adores drawing nudes. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 I'm afraid I can't agree with you, Princess. I see nothing erotic in Goya's Naked Maja or Michelangelo's David, to cite some, and have never seen it. When I see an artistic nude, what I see is the beauty of the human body in its most natural form, the same way I see nothing erotic in a dog laying on his back to get his belly rubbed, or a horse rolling on the grass. We are all animals, and thus, should not be ashamed or afraid to see and appreciate out body in its most natural form. There is a very clear line between what I find artistic, and what I find erotic, even in art. To cite an example, DeviantArt does not allow porn on his site, be it photo or painting. I happen to see some very beautiful artistic nudes, one in particular I remember was a woman (whose face I couldn't see) with a tarantula on her pubic region. However, as of late, I see many pictures which, even in painting, have the only clear objective to be pornography, no matter how well painted they are. Girls with huge breasts and in poses you just can't deem not pornographic. I don't have an issue with them, but I frankly don't find them the least appealing, as there is nothing artistic in them, with the exception of the technique. It is what it is, and that's it. I'm not talking about being ambiguous, and if this is how TJ wants is to be, I will submit to his rules. But I find it as silly as when my aunt went to the school principal to speak with him, completely enraged, because her 12 year old daughter was being taught the French Revolution, and as she said; "that wasn't something a child should be studying because that part of history was bloody". Considering that she's as literate as a common river pebble, that shows pretty much how ridiculous she was being. I normally don't draw nudes, but I'm a nudist myself, and find it rather absurd how most people are afraid of human bodies, or think of lust when they see one. In centuries past, watching a woman's ankle may have been seen erotic (as it is said in many movies and books, though I have no proof of it, but you get my point), and today we show our bellies and legs with pride and don't immediately think, "OMG, P****". There must be more than just showing a body for there to be erotism, much less porn. Then again, the forum is PG-13. I don't see how it is more grave for an 8 year old to see the linked picture of the David in a discussion about Renaissance art, than reading through an abortion discussion. I'm all for child protecting, but I think we, as a society, are going waaaay overboard with it. I've even seen parents in Amazon comments saying how Happy Feet was very scary for children because there is a part where a couple of orcas pursue the penguin, when that's a natural behavior of wild orcas and pretty normal in the natural antarctic ecosystem, and, quiet frankly, I saw nothing scary there, no more than evil stepmother in all of Grimm's Fairy Tales, or the murder of Mufasa by his own brother. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) DragonNighthowler, I did say "a good bit" and not "all" (there is far, far more art out there than just Michaelangelo's David...there is Donatello's, for instance, and that's not even getting into some Greek pottery I've seen), and I certainly was not calling for such an unambiguous rule to be enacted anywhere else but here. I think it ought stay as unambiguous as TJ stated it here at DC, where quite a few DC forum goers have asked over and over for unambiguous rules and have been unsatisfied in the extreme with guidelines that had shades of gray. DC wished unambiguous rules that were clear. In my opinion, DC now has them and should abide by them, even though one of them is a tad absurd in some respects, because that's better than the alternative. Just for DC. That has nothing to do with my personal opinion on the matter for the rest of the world. Edited January 20, 2012 by Princess Artemis Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 DragonNighthowler, I did say "a good bit" and not "all" (there is far, far more art out there than just Michaelangelo's David...there is Donatello's, for instance, and that's not even getting into some Greek pottery I've seen), and I certainly was not calling for such an unambiguous rule to be enacted anywhere else but here. I think it ought stay as unambiguous as TJ stated it here at DC, where quite a few DC forum goers have asked over and over for unambiguous rules and have been unsatisfied in the extreme with guidelines that had shades of gray. DC wished unambiguous rules that were clear. In my opinion, DC now has them and should abide by them, even though one of them is a tad absurd in some respects, because that's better than the alternative. Just for DC. That has nothing to do with my personal opinion on the matter for the rest of the world. Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. Language gap, I'm not native. Of course, I will abide by the rules. I wasn't even thinking of posting nude art anywhere soon, but I simply find it funny that we can discuss certain topics, and not see even a linked picture of the David. I see nothing ambiguous in permitting, say for example, a Wikipedia link to Michelangelo (where you can see, in said article, a picture of his most famous sculpture and more of his works, or Goya who has some beautiful nudes and some dark, gruesome and disturbing paintings), and not permitting pornography. That's because I see a very fine line between the two, no matter how naked a body appears. Have you seen Rubens or Goya's Saturn Devouring his Son? Now both those paintings gave me nightmares. Anyways, I did have the idea DC never permitted porn. I don't recall ever seeing it on DC, but maybe that's just me. Funny, I got a censor badge for placing a few stars Sorry if I bothered you in any way. It was not my intention, really. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 Thanks for the clarification, TJ! Hopefully we can get GD back to life properly. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 it's safe to return? no more squabbles? yay ^^ thanks TJ Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 I fail to see any way rules can be broken down any further, therefore, this is good. Personal opinions: I understand why people are cranky about not being able to post to "proper nude/natural art", however: once exceptions start being made to rules, grey areas start popping up. Grey areas are interpreted differently by each person, which leads to the different modding types you see across the staff. If things are to be run smoothly, getting the rules as clear as possible so that /everyone/ understands is the best course of action. I'v learned in my own experiences here and in the chat that no matter how carefully you phrase things, even when you purpusely set up rules to be as fluid and easy going as possible, people will always demand new rules, new clarifications. These clarifications provide a clear, concise guideline for what will be modded, how much wiggle room there is to work in. Less grey area to mod in is a good thing. As a forum user.. grey area is a fun place to play, but as a mod, it becomes very difficult to find the middle grounds between ok and not. I dont have to like the elimination of the grey areas, nothing anywhere can force that. But as a mod in my own rights, the grey area being narrowed down is a great thing. It provides everyone across the board even, consistant guidelines to post by and mod by. Wasnt that exactly what you guys asked for? Clear, easy to understand rules that laid everything out on the table... Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 Clear rules are good. I agree that having to ban links to artwork that happens to show the human body unclothed is absurd, but given the liberties some people will take when given wiggle room, I can see the need for it. My kids don't read the forum now, but when the day comes there are some links I don't need them seeing and a disclaimer would have no value. Links to MET level art would be fine (mine have already been there and seen it all), but again, back to the liberties people would take... I think, in a discussion about art, if there is a specific piece you'd want to use as an example, a statement with its name and artist and a reminder that Google is our friend would be enough. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 I'd have thought that simply stating something like "Botticelli's Venus (the image can be seen in wikipedia" would be OK. No direct link, and if someone really wants to look - fine - and if their parents have blocked wherever the image is hosted - then they won't see it. Otherwise as Thuban says - the rules will just get us back to the number we first thought of. Someone will ALWAYS find an exception that "ought to be OK". Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 I never really understand what people with all this censorship want to achieve. To protect children? From what? From knowledge, from finding out that this world is cruel immoral ridiculous place to live? We are like the king who forbade spinning on distaff or spindle, or the possession of one, upon pain of death, throughout the kingdom, so the Sleeping Beauty will not fall asleep. It didn´t work, did it? No, I´m wrong I understand. Many people will happily give up their rights their freedom if you make them believe it will protect children. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 I never really understand what people with all this censorship want to achieve. To protect children? From what? From knowledge, from finding out that this world is cruel immoral ridiculous place to live? We are like the king who forbade spinning on distaff or spindle, or the possession of one, upon pain of death, throughout the kingdom, so the Sleeping Beauty will not fall asleep. It didn´t work, did it? No, I´m wrong I understand. Many people will happily give up their rights their freedom if you make them believe it will protect children. And whats wrong with wanting children to stay children for as long as THEY want to be? No my kids do NOT come to this forum, but they do see what i look at, they randomly read the chat, look over my shoulders to see what im doing, and who is talking. They both can pick out the names of the users in chat who most frequently say hi to them the "few" times i let the kids visit. My son is embarrassed by bodies, not because he thinks that seeing skin is bad, but he doesnt like to see naked bodies, in any form. In our old city, there was a statue set of a family standing naked on the corner of an intersection with a really really long light. We have had many many conversations about those statues (he insists they need a sweater in the winter cause metal gets cold and /they/ have to be freezing. He doesnt mind naked babies, or kids (changing in the locker room for the pool, totally ok, but behind the bushes in the woods.. nooope. Peeing on trees is A-OK though in his book) I come off as a prude around here, real life, im pretty bad. Everything has a place, and nudity doesnt really fit in here. I have no problem with tasteful nudes, clever use of shadows.. but if i want nudity, i go where the nudity is, not a kids game forum. I've learned to accept that no matter what, people will always focus on one small detail and blow it way out of proportion. Meh, so there will be no hints of buttcracks, or side boobs or anything like that here... does that really change anything? Its been stated several times already that this hasnt been a problem, cause nobody posts that stuff... so why is it now a problem with the clarifications? its something that could have been brought up and knocked out over the months and months of discussions, threads, meetings and everything that led up to this news post. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 That doesn't sound something trouble-making, i guess. All fine and quite default. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Actually I'm not into the protecting children thing. Mine were exposed to far more than anyone here is suggesting here from day one; they educated their little friends about the facts of life and MAN did I get into trouble from a few angry parents Which is why I think these rules will HELP. More children will be allowed on here to hear DISCUSSION of things they should hear about. Which is perfectly possible without linking to nude images - however artistic. I love naturism and will pick out a campsite (as long as it's in a warm place !) that is naturist rather than one where all are fully clad. But I can't see why linking to images of nudity is necessary in discussion. If it is genuine art we are talking about - just saying where it can be found is enough for the interested to locate it, and for Thuban's son NOT to see it. And who wants links to buttcracks - not me, and I am no prude (I even horrify my grownup children...) I mean that literally - who actually WANTS to ? bad enough seeing them hanging out of jeans on the street - ugly does not begin... If you are FRANTIC to show them to someone - PM them the link. Where is there a discussion where a link to nudity would further anything in any way except about art - when a note about source will do the job as well as posting a link ? Not that I've ever seen a serious art discussion here... Oh typefails typefails... DAMN ! Edited January 20, 2012 by fuzzbucket Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 Finally some rules I can get behind. I'll be lurking for a while to see how this pans out. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 Blarf, to be honest, all those points that TJ made ... I though that was a rule already *lol* No violence/nudidity (god, bite me I can´t write it)/ and swearing/harrasing/threatening ... I mean, we are a page for younger users/teenagers. But thanks for the clarification. BTW. stop throwing a fit, guys, he says no nudidity, then it means NO nekkid things, even art <.< Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) On topic - Yes, thanks for clarification TJ09 (if we even needed one...), no prob About "protect the kids", I can only say two things: - Protect them? Really? From what? Do you know all the "things" between kids in schools this days? TV? Internet? - And I guess you all know, that "forbidden fruit are the most sweatiest one" and all, right? I mean, that by "trying to protect them" you are only making it more interesting for them. If they want to watch/find something - they WILL find a way. Edited January 20, 2012 by Helel Share this post Link to post
Posted January 20, 2012 Thank you for the update TJ, everything seems fine and quite normal rules to me. c: Share this post Link to post
Recommended Posts