Porn/Gore Rule

[iJava]

A week ago there was discussion on the IRC which SuF started I think regarding the porn rule on Sythe.org. The current rule states :

Porn/Gore: posting pictures, videos, links to websites related to porn/extreme gore, etc. The staff will decide what constitutes porn or gore. It is not for you to decide. Steer clear of posting anything which could be interpreted as this.

I do releaize that it says "The staff will decide what constitutes porn or gore. It is not for you to decide" however this rule could be made more direct and easier to understand.

Since the definition for porn is :

Writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to [B]stimulate sexual excitement[/B]

This means that having a girl in her underwear in your signature is counted as porn which is clearly not the case here as you can see by the number of signatures with pornographic images/videos in them which haven't been deleted.

All I'm asking is that the rule be changed from porn to nudity or something more direct to avoid any confusion.

 

I once got infracted for posting boobs from tc >.< it was nudity > porn.

Basically, don't put naked content.

Same thing?

 

[Clashfan]

 

[SuF]

Meh. Most definitions say that its main purpose is to create sexual desire or what not. Changing the term to nudity simply better reflects how we currently enforce the rule and its really not a major change.

 

[iJava]

Read further on down the page and you should find the quote I included.

Meh. Most definitions say that its main purpose is to create sexual desire or what not. Changing the term to nudity simply better reflects how we currently enforce the rule and its really not a major change.

I share the same view as you.

 

Lol, no use in arguing this. It's been stated like that for years and there haven't been any problems (to my knowledge). It should stay where it is.

 

[pwnagex5]

You must take into account that there are alot of 12 year olds on this site lmao

 

[Sypherz]

I get turned on by bagels.
You had better not post pictures of bagels, a.k.a. pornography, or I swear you will be infracted.

 

[Noam]

If people start truly spamming almost-porn, then I think there will be no need for a change, and it will be a waste of staff time.

 

[Rahman]

Well, to be honest I have seen siggys which closely resemble nudity and porn, shouldn't that be infracted too ?

 

Well, to be honest I have seen siggys which closely resemble nudity and porn, shouldn't that be infracted too ?

If you have seen them, report them. A moderator will decide whether the user should be infracted/signature disabled or not.

 

[iJava]

If the rule is going to stay as it is then signatures/posts with any images that resemble porn should be infracted. This is a marketing technique to grab the attention of all the 12 year old's on the site who get a boner over lingerie and shouldn't be allowed as it makes the site lose respect.

 

[n4n0]

If the rule is going to stay as it is then signatures/posts with any images that resemble porn should be infracted. This is a marketing technique to grab the attention of all the 12 year old's on the site who get a boner over lingerie and shouldn't be allowed as it makes the site lose respect.

You fail to realize, this is the INTERNET. 12 year olds have porn LITERALLY at their FINGERTIPS.

A scantily-clad photo of a woman in a signature isn't that big of a deal.

 

[iJava]

You fail to realize, this is the INTERNET. 12 year olds have porn LITERALLY at their FINGERTIPS.

A scantily-clad photo of a woman in a signature isn't that big of a deal.

What if that 12 year olds parents saw him looking at these images on Sythe.org. I'm sure there not going to like it adn may even block or ban sythe.org.

 

[Ancient SaiF]

This would have a negative effect on youngsters. Kids nowadays are always tempted, and as above, if a parent saw and reported it it would be Sythe's fault. Allowing pornographic shit on websites take special licencing too I think.

 

[FeCoola]

I don't know man I'm pretty sure it goes without saying don't post nudity on a forum such as this....

 

[x339]

I think everyone is pretty clear with the rule here on porn, no full pictures of anything sexually related (i.e. boobs). Its kind of like how TV works, you can show boobs, but not the nipple, because its not the whole thing.

However I think the gore rule is pretty vague, I have seen some pretty intense things here on sythe (not to the extent of other websites) like the video of that little Chinese girl being run over by a truck. I think we should get a clearer definition on this.

 

[Jeff]

Since the definition for porn is :

Writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to [B]stimulate sexual excitement[/B]

This means that having a girl in her underwear in your signature is counted as porn which is clearly not the case here as you can see by the number of signatures with pornographic images/videos in them which haven't been deleted.

>implying you get a hard on by seeing a female in a bikini

OT: As you've agreed yourself, and as it is already defined in the Official Sythe Rules, it is at the staffs discretion to decide what they constitute as pornography.

And as Gohan already stated, this rule has been in effect for however many years and there have been no known problems.

Therefore no support.

 

[Zorp]

Tbh.. we're all guys here pretty much with the exception of a few girls maybe.. I don't see why we can't keep girls in underwear.. I've seen a few ex-mod sigs with nipple slips.. really its fine the way it is.

 

[n4n0]

What if that 12 year olds parents saw him looking at these images on Sythe.org. I'm sure there not going to like it adn may even block or ban sythe.org.

To be completely honest, this isn't a site a 12 year old should be on anyways.