Punishment for Naked Images

[IRL Seller]

Hey all!

I have recently come upon a crossroads where my interpretation of the rules and what I saw was in conflict. Knowing, to what I believe, is an infringement on the rules, I reported this conflict using the ! button that is on all posts. With a speedy response time, I got the response of "Worst has been used in the passed and was acceptable. I've gotten a second staff members opinion as well, closed."

Here is the specific user profile that I am talking about is here (not meaning to single anyone out)
The specific reply by staff was posted by ZippyGFX (and someone he conferred with) can be found here.


Let me also state this. I am NOT meaning to call out Zippy or whomever he conferred with. I am merely requesting clarification as the official rules state:

Users will be banned for 1 month for the following:

• 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.

There is clearly seminudity on that user's avatar. I am not offended by his image, but I am merely concerned that if I am reading something and my mother or younger sister walk in, they will question what I am doing if their eyes glance over my screen.

I understand that

The staff will decide what constitutes porn.

however from what I have heard now, this is NOT porn. Therefore, can I please have this as my avatar.

I thought this would be more pertinent to go into Suggestions rather than Staff Feedback as it deals more with questioning the interpretation of a rule rather than the view of 2 staff members!

Thanks!

 

this is NOT porn. Therefore, can I please have this as my avatar.

If you want...


I told Zippy it was fine. And, obviously, I think it is fine. A man with his top off and boxers on wouldn't be removed, would it?

 

[IRL Seller]

If you want...


I told Zippy it was fine. And, obviously, I think it is fine. A man with his top off and boxers on wouldn't be removed, would it?

what if his dick was hanging out? or he was facing a wall and his boxers were off

 

what if his dick was hanging out?

Not comparable to above

or he was facing a wall and his boxers were off

so what, what's the big deal lol

 

[IRL Seller]

Not comparable to above


so what, what's the big deal lol

it is an orifice of the body almost blatantly exposed

 

hide yo' kids, hide yo' wife, it's an ass

I don't see the issue personally, butt that's just me

 

[D3xus]

It degrades woman, and I'd think if they dont have copyright to distribute, they shouldn't have a woman shaking her visible ass.

Just my two sense

 

[Heads447]

@IRL Seller - I thought we cleared this up already... http://www.sythe.org/denied-suggestions/1635725-soft-porn.html

Nudity=not ok
Partial nudity=ok, as long as its in your avatar/sig, and not posted on some random thread outside the USF

 

[IRL Seller]

hide yo' kids, hide yo' wife, it's an ass

I don't see the issue personally, butt that's just me

.jpg>.png

Personally, I think it is EXTREMELY suggestive of porn.

@IRL Seller - I thought we cleared this up already... http://www.sythe.org/denied-suggestions/1635725-soft-porn.html

Nudity=not ok
Partial nudity=ok, as long as its in your avatar/sig, and not posted on some random thread outside the USF

I interpretted "Soft porn" as Bikini Wear.

Thongs ect are much more revealing and intending.

its best to just not mess with images like that anywhere except for Upper SF.

 

If you're petrified of seeing ass on your screen then just turn signatures off or something imo

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

I can't see a problem with this, it's only blatant nudity that there should be a problem with if it's out of USF.

 

[Ow 3 Hit]

I don't see a point to having that as their signature, if anything it makes me want to go fap.

I'm here for Runescape related activities.

I'm 12 wut is this

 

[IRL Seller]

If you're petrified of seeing ass on your screen then just turn signatures off or something imo

Not petrified at all. and it's an avatar not a sig.

I can't see a problem with this, it's only blatant nudity that there should be a problem with if it's out of USF.

how is an ass not nudity?

and an avatar is everywhere, not USF

 

You can block those as well

edit; or even ad-block specific images that you don't want to see

 

[IRL Seller]

You can block those as well

edit; or even ad-block specific images that you don't want to see

seems like a lot of hassle to the everyday user to avoid having to see asses everywhere.

 

[Zeus22]

if u think that is porn then you really need to get outside more

 

[Lean]

The rule states PORN/NUDITY/GORE. I don't see any nudity, or anything that would constitute as porn or gore. I've seen magazine covers in stores while there are children in the store that are worse than that.


His avatar isn't really that noticeable when browsing the threads he's posted in. If for example someone was using the image you've suggested above as a signature or posting it around the forum, then i'd say that's somewhat softcore porn. The girl in his avatar looks like she's wearing a g string bikini, plenty of girls wear these at the beach while hundreds of children are at the same beach.

 

[iJava]

It's the internet, there's advertisements on all kinds of sites which could be interpreted as porn in the way you define it. People use these images to gain attention and it's quite often just a marketing technique, have you ever watched a movie online? The advertisements and popups you get are 10x worse than anything on Sythe and that is still a harmless/innocent(I know it's not legally....) act.

 

To be honest, if I can see nips, bare naked ass or the batty crease I'll give you a swift banning. That's what i'd class as "PORN/NUDITY". Anything else should be let go, and people should stop getting their knickers in a twist.

It's quite simple, don't be a fucking idiot.

 

[IRL Seller]

To be honest, if I can see nips, bare naked ass or the batty crease I'll give you a swift banning. That's what i'd class as "PORN/NUDITY". Anything else should be let go, and people should stop getting their knickers in a twist.

It's quite simple, don't be a fucking idiot.

so based off this, a gstring doesn't cover anything but the asshole itself, hardly visible on a regular ass anyway